Inter Vivos Gift as Land Inheritance Mechanism for FELDA Land Holding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to identify the key points of the FELDA land inheritance issues and their possible solutions. Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act 1960 was analyzed as it is the main act that regulates FELDA land management. This study discovered that Section 14 limits the land holding to not more than two holders while Section 15 prohibits subdividing or partitioning over FELDA land holding. An administrator is appointed to manage the land on behalf of other heirs and this practice poses risk as the administrator may fail to execute the trust. Hence, inter vivos gift is proposed to address this problem. It was also found that status of FELDA land holding is considered as ‘Conditional Holding’ since it limits the number of registered holders and authorisation to inherit the FELDA land to the second FELDA settlers generation This study concluded that inter vivos gift is legal and this is evidenced from the Section 215, National Land Code 1965 which demonstrates that FELDA land holding can be transferred to the second generation via ‘Form 14A’ at the land offices with the consent from the State Authority and FELDA management as specified in the Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act 1960.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".