Figure 1
Map of Kota Kinabalu and Penampang districts, Sabah, Malaysia. The case study regions are highlighted in red. (Source: Authors’ work).
Table 1
A de facto and formal overview of practice-based diverse property-rights and regimes positions in Sabah’s non-stratified residential public domain1: Country Lease (CL) and Native Title (NT) POS governance.
| Property-rights structure | 1st phase CL POS (Prior to title deed issuance) (Un-transferred title) (Un-handed over site) (held under owner’s covenant) | 2nd phase CL POS (Prior to title deed issuance: interim) (Un-transferred title) (Handed over site) (‘Bare Trustee’)2 | 3rd phase CL POS (Title deed issued) (Transferred title) (Handed over site) | Surrendered POS (Without title) (Without title- State land) (Needless site handing over/title transfer) |
| Land ownership | Private/Common property- developer/owners | State property- Local government (As an equitable owner) | State property- Local government (As a legal owner) | State property- State land |
| Management regime (including monitoring, maintaining, control etc.) | Private/Common property – (Developer/Co-landowner(s)) (Temporary – e.g. minimum 18 months) | State property- Local government or Local government + Common property/community association- residents (registered)* | Open-access resource (without being vested in Local Council)3 | |
| Access | x | x | ||
| Withdrawal/using | x | x | ||
| Management | x | None | ||
| Exclusion | None | None | ||
| Alienation (e.g. POS disposal, title deed transfer) | Title deed is only transferable to local council by the private titleholder(s) | Not transferable | Alienation (transfer or disposal) may not be necessarily possible | |
| For public access and consumption | Yes | Yes | ||
*Only certain districts and neighborhoods adopt such regime on some POS.
(Source: Adapted from Schlager and Ostrom 1992; Colding et al. 2013; Ling et al. 2014b).
1 For everyone and anyone even though they are not the citizen of the local districts or the State.
2 The subdivider becomes a bare trustee who is divested of his equitable rights/interest on the POS, except a non-active duty i.e. executing POS title transfer registration to council (see FAQ Sabahland 2014 on the definition of bare trustee concept and Modified Torrens System).
3 From de jure point of view, the POS should be vested in local government under the state property.
Figure 2
The relationship between institution, property-rights system inclusive of transaction costs and incentives structure, market behaviour and economic performance. (Source: Buitelaar and Needham 2007; see also Acemoglu et al. (2001).
Figure 3
Interplay between institutional property-rights structure, transaction costs and incentives distribution, stakeholders’ behaviour and action and POS quality. (Source: Adapted from Gerber et al. (2009) and Ling et al. (2014a).
Figure 4
Field Research Scoring Guide. (Source: Adapted from Portsmouth City Council (2012).
Table 2
Descriptive and inferential statistics on the association between title existence, community existence, transfer of POS title deed to government and POS site handing over period (year) to government with quality of POS.
| Without title | With title | Total | Without community presence | With community presence | Total | POS title deed has been transferred | POS title deed has not been transferred | Total | Site handed over before year 2000 | Site handed over between 2000 and 2009 | Site handed over in year 2010 and above | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of POS | Poor | Count | 22.0 | 68.0 | 90.0 | 62.0 | 6.0 | 68.0 | 56.0 | 12.0 | 68.0 | 56.0 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 68.0 |
| Expected count | 11.5 | 78.5 | 90.0 | 55.3 | 12.7 | 68.0 | 56.7 | 11.3 | 68.0 | 40.8 | 19.0 | 8.2 | 68.0 | ||
| Column percentage % | 100.0 | 45.3 | 52.3 | 50.8 | 21.4 | 45.3 | 44.8 | 48.0 | 45.3 | 62.2 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 45.3 | ||
| Good | Count | 0.0 | 82.0 | 82.0 | 60.0 | 22.0 | 82.0 | 69.0 | 13.0 | 82.0 | 34.0 | 30.0 | 18.0 | 82.0 | |
| Expected count | 10.5 | 71.5 | 82.0 | 66.7 | 15.3 | 82.0 | 68.3 | 13.7 | 82.0 | 49.2 | 23.0 | 9.8 | 82.0 | ||
| Column percentage% | 0.0 | 54.7 | 47.7 | 49.2 | 78.6 | 54.7 | 55.2 | 52.0 | 54.7 | 37.8 | 71.4 | 100.0 | 54.7 | ||
| Total | Count | 22.0 | 150.0 | 172.0 | 122.0 | 28.0 | 150.0 | 125.0 | 25.0 | 150.0 | 90.0 | 42.0 | 18.0 | 150.0 | |
| Expected count | 22.0 | 150.0 | 172.0 | 122.0 | 28.0 | 150.0 | 125.0 | 25.0 | 150.0 | 90.0 | 42.0 | 18.0 | 150.0 | ||
| Column percentage% | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Inferential statistics:
aχ2 (1, N=172)=22.984, p=0.000; λ=0.17, Proportional Reduction Error=17.0% (Significant).
bχ2 (1, N=150)=7.938, p=0.005; λ=0.03, Proportional Reduction Error=3.0% (Significant).
cχ2 (1, N=150)=0.086, p=0.769; λ=0.00, Proportional Reduction Error=0.0% (Non-significant).
dχ2 (2, N=150)=30.047, p=0.000; λ=0.325, Proportional Reduction Error=32.5% (Significant).