Formal Protest Regarding the Gazettement of the Amendment to the Licensed Land Surveyors Act 1958, Malaysia: Advocating for Fairness and Transparency in Geomatics

We wish to formally lodge our protest and express our deepest concern regarding the amendment to the Licensed Land Surveyors Act 1958 (Act 458) and accompanying regulations (Licensed Land Surveyors (Amendment) Regulations 2024) that were gazetted on 22 October 2024 and came into operation on 23 October 2024, which we believe marginalises a significant segment of the geomatics profession and jeopardises the future of many experienced professionals.

We refer to the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) paper submitted by the Land Surveyors Board (LJT) in 2020 in applying for the legislative amendment. In Page 3, para 3.1 it is stated by LJT themselves that Act 458 only provides for the authority of Licensed Land Surveyors (LLS) to carry out land title survey work only. LJT clearly admitted that the license they issue is basically for land title survey work. Then how is it that those 456 active LLS today are ironically officially recognised overnight through the gazette of the regulations as experts in the nine (9) sub-fields of geomatics, which are (1) Airborne Survey and Mapping, (2) Geodetic Survey, (3) Hydrographic Survey and Mapping, (4) Survey and Mapping of Engineering Works, (5) Survey and Mapping of Building Information Modelling (BIM), (6) Survey and Mapping for Geographic Information System (GIS), (7) Terrestrial Survey and Mapping, (8) Topographic Survey and Mapping, and (9) Underground Survey and Mapping? Are all of these 456 LLS really experts in all of these nine sub-fields of geomatics to be given exclusive status to do these surveys to the extent of prohibiting all other geomatics professionals who have been doing these tasks all this while? Can any sensible person come to such a conclusion?

Is it constitutionally right to take away the rights of those who have been performing the tasks in these nine sub-fields, some for decades and are now displaced by the law? Surely new rights granted to others should not take away the rights of those who have been in practice in their professional field.

1) Denial of Access to the Draft Regulations

We wish to highlight that despite multiple official requests, we were not provided the draft regulations prior to the Town Hall session on 9 September 2024, nor before the regulations were gazetted. While certain parts of the draft regulations were presented during the Town Hall, this limited presentation was insufficient for a thorough review or evaluation.

Following the Town Hall session, we submitted joint memorandums to the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability on 27 September 2024 and the Honourable Prime Minister on 14 October 2024, raising our concerns about the lack of transparency and the negative impact on non-LLS geomatics practitioners. Unfortunately, none of the issues we highlighted in the memorandums have been addressed.

The refusal to provide the full draft regulations and the lack of follow-up on stakeholder concerns have resulted in inadequate consultation, leaving us without the opportunity to raise necessary objections or propose amendments before the regulations were gazetted. This seems adding salt to injury as 38 stakeholders were not even invited for the engagement sessions of 2020-2021, and we had informed the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability and relevant parties about it.

We would respectfully like to ask the Honourable Prime Minister and Honourable Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability – Is this how the Madani concept is practiced?

2) Restriction of Registration to Geomatics and Surveying Degrees

The regulations primarily restrict eligibility for registration as LLS with LJT to only those with geomatics and surveying degrees, while excluding other highly relevant qualifications, such as geoinformatics, geography, engineering, town & country planning, agriculture, plantation, forestry, geology, landscape architecture, hydrography, oceanography and many others. This exclusion fails to recognise the interdisciplinary nature of geomatics, which draws from various fields, and effectively prevents many qualified professionals from practicing geomatics fully as now they need to register as LLS just to continue their previous geomatics practice.

While the regulations state that the Minister may approve qualifications related to geomatics survey upon recommendation of LJT, these professionals must pass any examination as determined by LJT before becoming an articled person. However, the criteria for what constitutes a “qualification related to geomatics survey” is unclear, leading to further uncertainty. Requiring candidates to pass an unspecified examination before becoming an articled person creates an unnecessary hurdle, especially for experienced professionals from related fields who may already possess the requisite skills and knowledge. This undermines the practical experience many of these professionals bring to the field.

Furthermore, experienced non-LLS geomatics professionals have not been offered direct absorption to be licensed, overlooking their extensive backgrounds and contributions to the field. If the legislative amendment is enacted without provisions for grandfather rights, these professionals may be unfairly barred from continuing their work, despite having operated in full compliance with previous laws. Grandfather rights would allow such individuals to continue practising in their respective fields of geomatics, ensuring that their livelihoods are not disrupted by the legislative changes.

We strongly object to this overly narrow definition of eligible qualifications in the regulations, which does not reflect the broader competencies and interdisciplinary skills required in the modern geomatics industry. The regulations should explicitly incorporate clear, practical and accessible pathways for professionals from a range of related fields to become LLS, ensuring that the profession remains open to the full spectrum of talent necessary for national development.

3) Non-LLS Geomatics Professionals Reduced to the Role of Assistant

Non-LLS geomatics professionals are now reduced to the role of Assistant, which is subject to the approval of the LJT. This demotion not only undermines the professional standing of many experienced geomatics practitioners but also limits their ability to work independently. Non-LLS geomatics professionals, who have contributed significantly to the geomatics industry, are now relegated to subordinate roles, regardless of their expertise and years of service. Some of those demoted to the level of Assistant have their own companies, and we hope this demotion, where they have no power to submit work they completed to clients as before, will not lead to their companies being used as vehicles for rent-seeking behaviour.

4) Experience Considered Only for Government Surveyors and Lecturers

While the regulations allow for the consideration of prior experience for Government Surveyors (two years) and lecturers (five years) for eligibility for Part II of the examination, it does not extend this provision to other non-LLS geomatics professionals with degrees in geomatics and surveying. This failure to recognise the extensive experience of many non-LLS geomatics professionals places them at a severe disadvantage, forcing them to undergo articled training and examinations as if they were new entrants to the field, despite their substantial practical experience.

This exclusion is unfair and does not take into account the decades of work and contribution made by experienced non-LLS geomatics professionals with degrees in geomatics and surveying, who now face an unjust path to registration, while other non-LLS geomatics professionals have no path at all.

5) Restrictions on Geomatic Surveys

The regulations make it clear that non-LLS geomatic professionals would no longer be permitted to conduct a wide range of geomatic surveys. This broad exclusion risks sidelining many experienced geomatic professionals, to the detriment of the development of industries reliant on these services. The regulations appear to reserve all geomatics survey projects by government departments and government linked companies (GLCs) exclusively for LLS. We express our concern on the competitiveness and value for money for government procurement of services.

Furthermore, for Survey and Mapping for Engineering Works, there is no mention in the regulations of professional engineers being allowed to conduct these surveys. This omission conflicts with other legislation, such as the Registration of Engineers Act 1967, which allows professional engineers to carry out engineering surveys. Furthermore, it is unclear whether professional engineers would still be authorised to conduct essential components of engineering surveys, such as airborne, terrestrial and topographic survey and mapping, which are critical for data capture in large-scale infrastructure projects.

This oversight creates potential legal and operational conflicts, as well as unnecessary restrictions on professional engineers who are qualified to perform these tasks.

6) Ambiguity Regarding Government Surveyor Posts

The regulations do not specify which government posts can be authorised by the Director General of Survey and Mapping as Government Surveyors. Based on the understanding that only geomatics and surveying degrees are recognised, it appears that only the post of Surveyor (Juruukur) would be eligible. If this is true, it poses a serious challenge for government departments that do not have this post within their organisational structures. These departments may either have to create new posts or hire LLS for their geomatics surveys, which would add to costs and administrative burdens on their operations.

From our understanding of the briefing provided at the Town Hall session on 9 September 2024, the authorisation of public officers to undertake geomatic surveys would be limited to the posts of Surveyor, Geospatialist (Jurugeospatial), and Assistant Surveyor (Penolong Juruukur). However, based on our interpretation of the regulations, the post of Geospatialist will not be eligible for authorisation as a Government Surveyor. This lack of clarity further complicates the situation.

7) Monopolisation of Geomatics Field by LLS

We strongly object to the monopolisation of the geomatics field by LLS under these regulations. By excluding non-LLS geomatics professionals from practicing geomatics surveys independently and by limiting their roles to assistants, the regulations create an unfair competitive advantage for LLS practitioners, effectively cutting off many professionals from work they have successfully carried out for years.

In fact, with thousands of skilled geomatics professionals now displaced to accommodate a selective class of 456 Licensed Surveyors (LS), the profession risks becoming exclusive rather than inclusive, overlooking the invaluable contributions of those who have dedicated years, if not decades, to the field.

This move will stifle innovation, reduce diversity in the industry, as well as increase costs for public and private sector projects due to the limited pool of licensed professionals able to bid for geomatics survey contracts.

8) Our Solemn Plea

In light of these concerns, we urgently request a review of the legislative amendment, with an immediate moratorium on its enforcement until the issues raised are fully addressed. We trust that these matters will be given serious consideration and that steps will be taken to rectify the significant issues arising from the amendment. We remain open to dialogue and look forward to a fair resolution that preserves the integrity and inclusivity of the geomatics profession.

This press release is issued by:

1. Institution of Geospatial and Remote Sensing Malaysia (IGRSM)
2. National Hydrographic Association (Malaysia) (MyNHA)
3. Malaysian Society of Soil Science (MSSS)
4. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Geoscience & Remote Sensing Society(GRSS) Malaysia Chapter
5. Malaysian Society of Agricultural and Food Engineers (MSAE)
6. Institute of Geology Malaysia (IGM)
7. Agricultural Institute of Malaysia (AIM)
8. Institute of Foresters Malaysia (IRIM)
9. International Institute of Plantation Management (IIPM)
10. Malaysian Institute of Planners (MIP)
11. Institute of Landscape Architects Malaysia (ILAM)
12. Malaysia BIM Association
13. Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (IEM)