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


management. 389-409 the primary tools of land administration are based on the current practices such as land surveying. 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.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. 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 SPATIAL / LAND INFORMATION Source: Adopted from Dale and McLaughlin (1999). 390 . Williamson et al (2005) further explained that land administration is presently moving towards information management stage using IS especially to revolutionise collection. Security of Tenure and Investments) Land Ownership/Tenure (Land Rights Legal Means) Land Value (Valuation. Such a system can support land markets and is concerned with the administration of land as a natural resource to ensure sustainable development. Enemark et al (2005) also stressed that land administration SDI. presentation and use of spatial information. 2011. land registration and databases run by government organisations or institutions (federal/national. Vol. Steudler and Williamson (2002) and Enemark et al (2005). which facilitate the implementation of land policies in both developed and developing countries. state and provincials/districts). particularly with the core cadastral components are important infrastructures.6.

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). Thus. Land Tenure Principles (such as recognition of indigenous and information tenures). ‘business system’). The expansion of our land administration to support the trading of complex commodities offers many opportunities for land administrators. iii. iv. 1999). they can build efficient and effective access to land market and land use management in land administration. better land policy. Vol. Spatial Data Infrastructure Principles (such as SDI roles in supporting land administration and development of ‘infrastructure’ vs. departmental structure and decentralisation). land use and land development. Facilitating efficient land transfers and land markets. security of tenure and credit. Land Administration and Cadastral Principles (such as national land information system and implementation of reform). The fundamental idea can rebuild land administration to support emerging needs of the government. It will bring benefits to both the individual and the community in future. v. land development. From that. and Providing basic information in physical planning processes.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. ministerial. access to data and standards. land information as one particular commodity can provide the potential for significant change of the way societies operate. Institutional Principles (such as government. and better land use) (UN-FIG. 2011. better land administration and management. Steudler (2007) identified the following land administration toolbox principles: i. ii. Supporting management of assets. These benefits include: i. This should be organised at the national. iii. iv. and how the governments and the private sector do business. regional/federal and local government levels based on relevant policies for data sharing.6. land value. 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. cost recovery. For example. 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. role of land administration to supporting in land market and managing natural resources). The Bathurst Declaration stressed that sustainable development needs sound land administration (good land information. ii. business and society to deliver more 391 . vi. Land Policy Principles (such as state and national land policy. Guaranteeing ownership.

The creation of specific organisations or programs for developing or overseeing the development of SDI. SDI development at national level is normally driven by the national mapping agency or national land agency. and Local SDI . SDIs facilitate the conveyance of virtually unlimited packages of Geographic Information (GI) with the use of standards and specifications. Vol. iii. Williamson et al (2005) identified 392 . equity and security.using lower resolution or small scale data. Regional SDI or Global SDI . Rajabifard et al (2003) identified the following four SDI initiatives based on different groups of people. State SDI . efficiency. iv. However.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. 389-409 integrated and effective information. multi-level academic and the public. commercial sector (profit sector and non-profit sector). policies and institutional arrangements available to facilitate access to spatial data. 3. frequently producing and using data at lower level of detail and cover broad areas. transparency and accountability. land administration can support several norms to achieve good governance such as sustainability. SDIs provide a basis for spatial data discovery.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. 2011. state or local/provincial level). At the same time. 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. National SDI . 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. the SDI activity for land administration or cadastral activities in several countries are under the state or provincials/district authority. The responsibility for SDI initiative in Malaysia is led by the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure. it uses less detailed data covering large regions that pertains to a particular layer. However. 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.using large scale and particularly land parcel data. organisations and agencies in the development and implementation of SDI: i. evaluation and application for all levels of government (federal.6.interested to cooperate with multiple countries in different fields which need lower data resolution. ii. LAND ADMINISTRATION AND SDI GSDI (2004) summarised that Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) are technologies.

legal and policy aspects that can be used to assist the delivery of sustainable development at all levels of government and society. At the same time. collection of data and integration of data) to Second Generation (Process Based Model such as knowledge infrastructure. If a country is made up of multi governments. regional or global SDIs. and Understand that SDI is not a “database”. and development of collaboration models). 4. 389-409 four factors based on the relationship between SDI implementation and land administration. which distinguishes it from the typically small-scale data in national. 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) 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. Vol. 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. Williamson et al (2003) observed that the last decade had seen the evolving SDI concept focussing on National SDIs. access technologies and standards. capacity building and more coordination). institutional. The SDI concept must evolve from First Generation (Product Based Model such as definition of data. Mohammadi et al (2006) highlighted the two stage focus in the development of the National SDIs. the non-technical stages are mostly handled by managers. policy mechanisms and technical tools. decisions and policies. 2011. Such spatial enablement allows business transactions to be linked to a place or location and further facilitates the evaluation and analysis of relationships 393 . awareness of existing spatial data. ii. iii. strategy-makers and policy-makers in interaction with other layers of spatial data stakeholders. These are: i.6. The objective of SDI is to link people to data. standard. iv. The first is the technical stage (such as application.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. and interoperability) and the second is the non-technical stage (such as arrangements of a single standard of data model. The enabling infrastructure provides the set of tools combining technical. it is an infrastructure which links people to data and comprises policies. The concept of ‘people-relevant data’ in the land administration field can provide richness to the implementation of SDI. institutional. legal. the SDI must have both interjurisdictional and intra-jurisdictional linkages between the different levels.

At the same time. geo-referencing significant core data. 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. completeness and accessibility through the hierarchy of local. 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 394 .6. Figure 2: SDI and Land Administration Arrangements in Land Management Model Sustainable Development (Economic. Land Development) Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) Land Information Infrastructure Country Context (Institutional Arrangements) Adopted from Enemark et al (2005). 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. Social and Environmental) e-Government Land Policy Framework e-Citizenship Land Administration Functions (Land Tenure. Vol. More effective and more transparent coordination. The creation of economic wealth through the development of products and services based on spatial information collected by all levels of government agencies. 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). ii. regional and national governments in a country are frequently voiced. iii. where voters are able to access the spatial information they require to evaluate the choices made by elected decision makers. business transactions and government. the real-time. 389-409 between people. pinpoint accuracy in land identification and measurement might be thought necessary: indeed demands for land information accuracy. comprehensiveness. Masser et al (2007) identified that a SEG plans to achieve three broad goals: i.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. 2011. Land Value Land Use.

land alienation. State Land Rules. Figure 3 shows the structure of land ownership for the Malaysian land administration. Vol. Land Information Infrastructures and Land Administration Functions. • Involves several legalisation such as National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965). Federal Land Commissioner Act 1957 (Act 349) and Land Acquisition (Compensation) (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1948. namely: Land Policies. 5.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. mission. and economic development system in urban and rural areas especially to upgrade Land Ownership/ Tenure Land Use 395 . Strata Titles Act 1985 (Act 318). The federal government is involved in national vision. land enforcement. 2011. The development of SDIs plays a central role in facilitating a country’s land information infrastructure. 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 consent. land revenue. Steudler and Williamson (2002) and Enemark et al (2005) land administration for the Malaysian Government in fact involves three ministries with several activities. social. after reviewing the definition based on Dale and McLaughlin (1999). However. financial budget and human resources management. The Malaysian land administration structure is based on the combination of three levels of governments (federal. 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). The land management or land administration activities needed to support sustainable development are described by three components. land development and land acquisition.6. 389-409 land policies and good governance. policy or strategies formulation. state and local). Ministry: • Ministry of Housing and Local Government Agencies: • Department of Federal Town and Country Planning (JPBD) Several activities: • Involves strengthening the physical. land disposal. 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.

• Provide comprehensive. land development. Sarawak Land Code 396 . Uniform Building By-Law 1984 and Street.6. Draft and implement planning methodologies. property developers and all parties involved in the property industry. disposal of land. plans and guidelines. • Develop and maintain a national property stock warehouse. quality and up-to-date property data especially property demand and supply data from various parties. Involves several legalisation such as Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172). JPBD (2006). enforcement. comprehensive and timely information regarding the demand and supply of property for government agencies. 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. 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. policies. • Portray the actual situation pertaining to the demand and supply of property. Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171). 389-409 • • the standard of living. Vol. Three main land laws are in use: National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) implemented at all state for peninsular of Malaysia only. 2011. 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. Source: JKPTG (2007). • Advise the government on property development.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research.

Article 74. minerals and rock material within the territories of State.1. transfer of land. mortgages.6. 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). and Sabah Land Ordinance (Cap 68) implemented for Sabah only. and local government. land value and land use belongs to various agencies or departments (see Table 1). Chapter 1. The setting up of the National Infrastructure for Land Information System (NaLIS) followed in October 1989. The local government is responsible for creating awareness and managing financial and human resources.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. Part Three. 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. 2008). Chapter 1. Part VI. registration of titles and deeds relating to land. 2007). 5. 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. 389-409 (Cap 81) implemented for Sarawak only. The federal and state governments handle issues of policy. The relationship between the SDI hierarchy and the components for the Malaysian land administration is shown in Table 2. 2008) also stressed all property in State land. Vol. 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.2. However. strategy and finance. 2007). NaLIS evolved into what is today called the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure ((MaCGDI. 5. However. 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. However. The structure of the Malaysian land ownership activities is based on Part VI. leases and charges in respect of land. state and private agencies in the geospatial activities. and subsequently. SDI implementation for the Malaysian land administration elements of land ownership. 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. 2011. 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. Section 40 (Malaysia National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) and Regulations. in December 2002. 397 . Article 76 Clauses (4) (Malaysia Federal Constitution. Chapter 1.

coordination. Security Order for Geospatial Document Categories Circular (PKPA 2007) 398 . Table 2: Comparison between SDI Hierarchy and SDI Components for the Malaysian Land Administration Government Agencies SDI COMPONENTS INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK JKPTG / PTG / PTD JPBD JPPH SDI HIERARCHY STATE SDI NATIONAL SDI LOCAL SDI Include several activities such as administration. a flexible and reusable IT infrastructure provides the technical platform and resources needed to have the ability to respond quickly to competitor moves. through the application of the technology to create an environment conducive for collecting. policy and legislation (needs successful partnerships & communication between agencies and jurisdictions) Supported by state and local government Supported by federal government FUNDAMENTAL DATASETS JKPTG / PTG / PTD JPBD JPPH Include several activities such as geodetic control. and to implement these strategies successfully. administrative boundaries. geographic names and localities. topographic features. organising and maintaining information. custodianship. Meanwhile the third dimension in CIS is the effective use of processes to link IS/IT assets with value realisation. human resources. 2011. The use process has two aspects. Vol. 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.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. as well as the capacity to launch innovative IS applications supporting new process designs or business initiatives. 389-409 Ward and Peppard (2002) and Abd. education & training. Secondly. financial. together with embracing the right behaviours for working with information. sponsorship. Land Control Networks Control Networks use & Land covers Following: i. leadership. Pricing and Delivery Geospatial Data Circular (PKPA 2005) iii. cadastre map. Custodianship Data Circular (PKPA 2001) ii.Halim et al (2009) stressed that the Cadastral Information System (CIS) involved three central dimensions: first. It includes managing change and making appropriate technology-sourcing decisions and involves knowing the extent of change that the business is capable of absorbing. using the technology and working with information.6. to seize opportunities quickly. data access. facilities. fusing IS knowledge and business knowledge to ensure the conception of strategies to utilize technological innovation.

hence standards for data models. providers. valueadded re-sellers and the users can be governments agencies. 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. According to the e-Tanah Project Team (2008). 2011.2. Land Administration Boundaries and Code Structure (UPI) Involves the acquisition. Consists of the access and distribution networks and clearinghouse for getting spatial information/datasets to users ACCESS NETWORK National Directory System JKPTG / PTG / PTD JPBD JPPH PEOPLE JKPTG / PTG / PTD JPBD JPPH State Directory System Local Directory System Limited for state or local government organisation only Limited for federal government organisation only Include users. MS1759 (Feature and Attribute Codes) ii.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research.6. Geography Name Database and Gazette iv. the e-Tanah system was introduced in April 2004. the e-Tanah Legal Committee. maintenance and enhancement of spatial data. 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. storage. 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). the Quality Assurance Group. 2008). Vol. Following: i. The structure of the e-Tanah project management involves two levels.1. academia. Policy particularly needs to be consistent for the pricing and access to spatial data within and between jurisdictions. integration and distribution of spatial data. 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. integration. Chong (2008) explained that the eTanah system involves nine core modules of land administration such as 399 . 389-409 TECHNICAL STANDARDS JKPTG / PTG / PTD JPBD JPPH Consistent standards and policy such as National Standards or International (ISO/TC211) are required to enable the sharing. Bakar (2006) described it as a pilot project at the Penang Land Administration upon approval by the Cabinet on 19 January 2005. metadata. custodians of spatial data. administrators. Warnest et al (2005) and McDougall (2006) 5. the e-Tanah Project Team and the e-Tanah Contractor/Vendor. transfer and interoperability of storage and analysis software. Malaysian Metadata Standard (International Standard Metadata ISO/TC211 19115 : Geographic Information) iii. Second.

collaboration with MaCGDI can ease the process of obtaining comments and suggestion from the technical department. simplifies work. that the e-Tanah project can give several benefits to the government. enabling the government to plan land development in a specific area correctly. 2011. Vol. Business. disposal of land. At the same time. such as increasing the revenue collection of the state and federal governments. 389-409 registration (as a main module). moreover. with the Single Point of Contact Concept users obtain more effective. 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. and prepares information on land administration in an accurate. expedient. efficient. Chong (2008) also stressed. land development. based on pilot project at the Penang Land Administration. secure and user-friendly services. land consent and land revenue. a system that is safe to use. Government) Single Point of Contact On-line Services One-Stop Payment Centre Public Portal State Secretary Office SPDK MyGDI e-JKPTG e-MMKN SPEK Payment Gateway Technical Departmen External Integration Internal Portal EXCO Core Module Support Module e-Tanah System Source: Chong (2008) 400 .International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. Figure 4: The Concept of the e-Tanah System Customer (Public. and centralised counters with direct transactions. integrated and uniform manner. as the public can obtain information and services online.6. this project can give several benefits to the public.

The VIS is an online system.2. 2011. to prepare and coordinate the National Physical Plan (NPP). first to manage and coordinate database (involved in management of geodata collection. State Land Use Intelligent System (SLaPiS) and District Land Use Intelligent System (DLaPiS). in order to monitor the performance of each office and the department as a whole. In addition. standardization. to manage and coordinate data sharing between all divisions and project offices. Vol. The implementation of SDI and GIS activities for land use elements falls under the respective information unit. Mapping using GIS and Property Information Management System (PRISM). The National Land Use Information Division (NLiD) is the custodian for land use data for JPBD and has three functions of NLiD. Land Use Activities The land information infrastructure for land use activities refers to the Integrated Land Use Planning System (I-Plan). State JPBD and Zone Office base on Relational Database Management System (RDMS). Local Plan (LP). 389-409 5. which can then help the public decisions on investments in this market. which is under the Finance Ministry. meanwhile.2. Land Value Activities The land information infrastructure for land value activities refers to the Valuation Information System (VIS). and third. the registration sub-module of MIS updates the main database with information pertaining to property transactions and valuation carried out by the department. 2006). The system enables forecasting of trends for the property market. NLiD has two units dealing with land use information and customer support. 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. and to develop. 2006). The CAV 401 . JPBD (2006) identified the I-Plan as an internal system and can update the sharing of more comprehensive information among JPBD headquarters. Structure Plan (SP). Spatial Plan (SP) Land use information through Land Use Planning Intelligent System (LaPiS). to manage data applications from government agencies and private sectors. second.6.3. verification.2. 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. 5. It consists of three main modules namely Management Information System (MIS). operating in the UNIX environment and using Oracle relational database management system and Arc/Info GIS software (JPPH. The statistical sub-module of MIS. storage and sharing). manage and coordinate national land use database. allows monthly reports of workload from the department's offices and individual technical officers to be generated.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. Computer-Aided Valuation System (CAV) and GIS.

6. 389-409 module of the VIS allows calculations of property values to be done automatically by the computer. Vol. Several challenges related to this issue involve awareness of data sharing. At the end of the processes. 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). 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. Skills. 2011. Isahak (2005) identified four mains aspects for Malaysia to improve its land administration organisation towards world-class level. talking. land information delivery services and data or information sharing). legislation and human resources management especially among multigovernment agency. The GIS component. iii. captures spatial and non-spatial information of land properties. knowledge and experience are the basic ingredients for creating professional specialists in land administration. ii.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. thus expediting valuation processes. The implementation of the VIS at all its branches nationwide will lead to the department phasing out the use of its previous system. certificates to report the values for valuation cases can be generated. System including Land Office must identify electronic land tax payment method and generate the coverage and develop a comprehensive National Land Information Centre.3. legislation. 402 . the implementation of an SDI for Malaysian land administration clearly shows the boundaries among the land administration government agencies. 5. Towards World-Class Land Administration Several countries today have started thinking. and offers a variety of analytical functions to process and produce accurate information fast. Technology means land administrators must use electronic hardware if they need to carry out land service-related job. Human Resources especially to improve land administration services in the future and at the same time have good leadership especially related to the organisation. Land offices service counters need to use electronic hardware for completion of task. meanwhile. iv. As a conclusion. discussing and taking actions to make land administration activities more efficient and effective (such as institution structure or framework. which does not support computerised calculations of property values. ‘The right man for the right job’ concept must be implemented in land administration. These are: i.

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. state levels or provincial levels. 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.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. policy. Table 3 shows three issues that must be given emphasis if the government is to successfully implement SDI in national land administration. 403 . especially for Malaysian land administration. Vol. financial planning and decision making for future plans such as Information System Strategy Plan and Land Information delivery services. 389-409 However.4.Halim and Shariff (2008) In institutional issues. data model and metadata). state and provincials or local government) financial preparation and constrain human resources management among land administration government agency or stakeholders (federal. 2011. It will be difficult to implement an SDI for land administration and develop a spatially enabled government without recognising the importance of institutional factors. However. this paper focuses on non-technical integration issues.6. 5. there are several issues such as legal constraint among different levels of government agencies or territory and human resources management among federal levels. policy and social). state and provincials or local government) data and information sharing Rights. Non-Technical Integration Issues in SDI Implementation Integration issues based on Mohammadi et al (2006) involve two levels. because they involve strategy. 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 Institutional Legalisation Social Source: Adopted from Mohammadi et al (2006) and Abd. These issues must be given priority as not all countries in the world have the same land administration and management concept. and second technical issues (such as data quality. legal. first nontechnical issues (Institutional. Restrictions and Responsibilities (RRR) Copyright.

The relationship between the legal framework and Malaysian land administration for land ownership activities started with section 5A sub sections 1. taxation and valuation. Other implementation issues of SDI belong to different agencies or ministries at federal. which include leadership in organisation. ‘The right man for the right job’ concept (Yidris. 2008) related to the implementation of Computerised Land Registration System (CLRS) for all district land offices in the Peninsular Malaysia only. state and local government) such as State Land Rules and Local Government Act in land ownership.6. stresses that all district land offices in the Peninsular Malaysia must implement the e-Tanah system for land ownership activities. the success of implementations of SDI for Malaysian land administration is dependent on the awareness of stakeholders. 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). 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. restrictions and responsibilities. and together with the IS 404 . knowledge and experience in land administration services. Vol. and data access. rights. From that.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. and all public and private rights and restrictions. 389-409 However. land decision-makers must consider the basic requirements for countries with multi-government (federal. including rights acquired under adverse possession. Since 2008. However. In the meanwhile. 2005). social issues refer to several factors such as cultural aspect of human resources. copyright and Intellectual Property Rights. The core module of the e-Tanah system is applied at the District Land Office monitored by the State Land and Mines Office. the National Land Code with new amendment (section 5D with Schedule 16). The relationship between legal framework and land administration field can find out the land societies involvement. However. For example Bakar (2006) identified the e-Tanah system as a modernising Land Office System Program. skills. state government and local government (see Figure 3). emergence of national land administration infrastructure. At the same time. Williamson (2002) stressed that a comprehensive land information management should disclose the complete legal status of all lands. 2008. 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. Yidris. (Malaysia National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) & Regulations. and dynamic balancing legislation between individual right. 2005) must be implemented. 2011. 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. public interest and government. privacy and data sharing.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS As a conclusion. On the other hand. or provincial government. 2011. 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. policy and strategy. the comparison between SDI hierarchy and SDI component for the Malaysian land administration among government agencies adopted from Rajabifard et al (2003). land information dataset creation. This means the selected personnel or officer in the land administration field must be familiar and knowledgeable about land administration activities especially land registrations. computerisation activities. 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. awareness from the top management or non-technical organisation is very important because they are involved in designing the goal and objectives. policies and partnership/cooperation models toward data and information sharing among different land administration stakeholders. but also for serving users’ needs among land administration stakeholders from multi-government to achieve spatially enabled society and government. and rights.6. restrictions and responsibility. planning. spatial and registration information would allow much more flexibility. the government vision. 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.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. land planning and land development. and improved interoperability of valuation. At the same time. 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. and law or act amendment. On the other hand. data sharing or privacy. Vol. Other issues are related to the background of land administration stakeholders. Warnest et al (2005) and McDougall (2006) is the 405 . The combination of new management styles. such as awareness about SDI implementation and collaboration model among different levels of government agencies. Moreover. 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. land taxation. 6. strategies and action plan. and relationship between land administration stakeholders among federal. land decision makers need to develop strategies. state. data access. This is because SDI is not merely for administration or management activities. However. 389-409 development will help in the making of strategy or policy in land administration field.

Halim. 18th . 406 . Proceedings 10th International Surveyor's Congress. Malaysia. Technology and Applications (Map Asia 2009). N. 389-409 alternative approach to guide the land administration decision maker to identify. N. Vol. M Shariff. Bakar. Yusof. H. S.. Kuala Lumpur. M. [accessed 10 December 2009].. Z.gisdevelopment. the e-Tanah Project Team. June 26-27 2008.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. Mahmud. Dale. “Strategic Management Information System Approach for Malaysia Land Administration Information System with Spatial Data Infrastructure”. . A. (2008). REFERENCES Abd. the Department of Valuation and Property Services (JPPH).. (2006). Shariff. Building Modern Land Administration Systems in Developed Economies. Abd. e-Tanah Project Team.20th August 2009.Halim. A. R. McLaughlin (1999). C. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Kuala Lumpur. 2011.15 October 2008 (ISG2008). M. Enemark. [accessed 20 December 2009].6. and A. 13. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. the Malaysian Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MaCGDI). L. the Department of Director General of Land and Mines (JKPTG). (2009). the Department of Federal Town and Country Planning (JPBD) and the anonymous reviewers of the earlier related topic of this paper for their encouragements. P. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our utmost gratitude to the Spatial Research Group (Universiti Putra Malaysia). Williamson. comments and suggestions. (2008). M. Wallace (2005). and J. at http://www. “The e-Tanah System: Towards the Modernization of the Land Administration System in Malaysia”. Malaysia. Ali. (2008). 50 (2): 51-68.. Proceedings 7th International Symposium and Exhibition on Geoinformation. A. R. H. R.etanah. Singapore. Land Administration. The Customer-centric e-Tanah. and J. Official Portal of e-Tanah System. Chong. I. at http://www.. M. and H. the Institute of Survey and Land National (INSTUN).. Spatial Sciences "The Implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructure toward Spatially Enabling Government for Malaysia Land Administration System". manage and monitor the implementation of SDI among multiple land administration agencies related to land information delivery services. Proceedings 8th Annual Asian Conference and Exhibition on Geospatial Information.htm.

Malaysia National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) and Regulations. S. (2006). at http://www. and I. Journal INSTUN . “SDI Requirements of Land Administration System”. Official Portal of Department of Director General of Land and Mines. McDougall. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. [accessed 8 December 2009]. Laws of Malaysia. Binns (2006). University of Melbourne. (2006). Spatially Enabling Governments through SDI Implementation. September 18-22 2003 Bangkok. A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development. Williamson. 407 . Selangor. Proceedings 17th UNRCC-AP Conference and 21th Meeting of The PCGIAP. National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) and Regulations (pp. Masser. Vol.Mendahului Cabaran. A. (2007). (2006). Binns. Official Portal of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Malaysia. and Melbourne: Department of Geomatics. (2008). In (2007). Isahak. Malaysia. at http://www. Laws of Malaysia. Melbourne. at 2011.kptg. 389-409 GSDI. [accessed 4 December 2009]. [accessed 8 December 2009].. Malaysia Federal Constitution.. JPBD. Rajabifard. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Petaling Jaya. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.). I.mygeoportal. A. Malaysia. Official Portal of Department of Town and Country Planning. Federal Constitution (pp.. M. and Mohammadi.. Official Portal of Malaysia Centre for Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MaCGDI). Malaysia: International Law Book Services.6. [accessed 13 December 2009]. 22(1): 5-. University of Melbourne. NRE. 1(1): 1-10. Ministry of Housing and Local Government. 303).International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. Enemark. Petaling Jaya. 551). Sustainability and Land Administration [accessed 8 December 2009]. (2007). S.20. A. Williamson (2007). (2008).. Y. Ke Arah Pengurusan Tanah Bertaraf Dunia. Australia. Rajabifard. “Spatial Data Integration”. (2004). Malaysia: International Law Book Services. at http://www. (2005). Wallace (Eds. Ministry of Finance. A. Malaysia. and A. Official Portal of Department of Valuation and Property Services. Thailand. at http://www. I. JPPH.0: GSDI-Technical Working Group. Rajabifard. Selangor. (2006). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook Version 2.

Proceedings FIG Working Week/GSDI . “Spatial Enabling Government: A New Direction For Land Administration Systems”.. A. I. Williamson. and I. in Williamson. Egypt. New York: Taylor and Francis Inc. 389-409 Rajabifard. Munich. Land Administration Guidelines. E. Steudler..). Williamson. New York: Taylor and Francis Inc. in Rajabifard... Melbourne: Centre for SDIs and Land Administration. (2007). April 16-21 2005. Williamson.).). F. F. D.. Grant. (1999). Feeney. The Bathurst Declaration on Land Administration for Sustainable Development. M. UN-FIG. Steudler. D. A. I. England: John Willey and Sons Ltd.. Warnest. USA.. (2002). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality. Feeney (Eds. A. Bandar Seri Begawan. and I. Feeney (Eds.) (2003). Nature and SDI Hierarchy”. 2011. M. D.Shaping The Change. and J. Peppard (2002). October 8-13 2006. (1996). and I. E.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. Germany. West Sussex PO19 1UD. I. Cairo. “Spatial Data Infrastructures: Concept. and A. Proceedings FIG XXIII Congress . Williamson (2005). Vol. A. Wallace (2006). I. 16-21 April 2005. Proceedings International Workshop on Good Land 408 .. Bathurst. Chichester. A. “Land Administration and Spatial Data Infrastructures”. and M. Egypt. “An Evaluation Framework for Land Administration Systems”. J. Department of Geomatic.. “A Framework for Benchmarking Land Administration Systems”. “Land Administration and Spatial Data Infrastructures Trends and Developments”..8.. Australia.. Rajabifard (2005). Williamson (2002). M. Williamson. Williamson. Rajabifard. with Special Reference to Countries in Transition. F. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publication. Washington. Rajabifard. Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality.6. and J. and J. Proceedings FIG XXII International Congress. “A Collaborative Approach to Building National SDI in Federated State Systems: Case Study of Australia”. Williamson..C. I. Strategic Planning for Information Systems (Third ed. September 18-22 2003. 400). (Ed. Rajabifard. ”New Roles of Land Administration Systems”. Brunei. Proceedings FIG Working Week/GSDI-8. Cairo. Ward. Towards a Spatially Enabled Society (pp. Wallace (2007). NSW. E. D. Baffins Lane. Proceedings Implementation Models of Asia and the Pacific Spatial Data Infrastructure (APSDI) Clearinghouse. I. UN-ECE.

Journal INSTUN . Sistem Pentadbiran Tanah Di Malaysia .6. 389-409 Administration . 2011.International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research. June 27-29 2007. Yidris.Mendahului Cabaran.Cabaran Masa Kini. (2005). 1(1): 59-76. 409 . A. Ulaanbaatar. Mongolia.Its Role in Economic Development. Vol.