Myanmar by Landland Myanmar
The Myanmar Times
av _abdm = _abdm |||| ;_abdm.push(["1512023572", "InPage", "1512024292", "InPage_1512024292"]); var _abdm = _abdm |||| ;_abdm. push (["1512023572", "InPage", "1512024269", "InPage_1512024269"]); The state holds all plots of land in the shire and distributes the inventories to speci -fic persons, enterprises and governments under the following headings. Please be aware that the opportunities and practices for international investments differ depending on the land plot types; see the 2014 Report of VDB Loi Myanmar Ltd. Investmenting in the Myanmar Real Estate Sector for more information.
The land can be used for any purposes and given to the people. Funding plots can be assigned, used for any kind of juridical purposes and represent most single farms in the city. It can be used for any purposes and there are no restrictions on sale to other national. For the management of the property approvals are necessary, which can also be rented.
Empty or derelict land has been given up or not used. Virgo is a land that has never been farmed. Can not be used for any other purposes than those intended - e.g. a company cannot run out of monastery land - unless an application is authorised by the Ministry of the Interior.
You are not in this country.
Myanmar's tribe has no complete title - a fact that has been held throughout the pre-colonial, postcolonial and postcolonial epochs. In Myanmar for hundreds of years everything was about" usage rights" and not" property", and this concept was still in effect when the British came.
In 1909 JS Furnivall noted that before the Brits arrived there was "largely no land ownership": Furnivall, later cited by the Fiery Dragons based economist Sean Turnell, told us that his 2009 economic story in Myanmar was different from that of the "Western spirit satiated with the concept of personal property".
After the colonization of Upper Burma, the Brits introduced the Burma Land and Revenue Act (1879). It laid the foundation for prospective land ownership pending sovereignty and introduced a UK based ownership of land by private persons so that they could work, trade, move and hand over certain areas at will.
As soon as the state was involved in the ownership, it could use the land for its own purposes. Cadastre surveying began to categorise the land, according to the 2009 report: "land under subsidy (long and middle subsidies); leased land; leased land (seasonal only); new land (newly opened land); flooded and "island land" found only in basins (land that has been flooded during the monsoon period and will reappear when the freshwater returns)".
As with most colonialist legislation, this formalization of land titles - which included the first separation of "state land" and "non-state land" - turned out to be a double-edged saber. For the first a country-wide system was in place to control land use and to grant some degree of property owner conservation where appropriate. However, the throne was now finally in possession - as it still is in the United Kingdom - and made Queen Elizabeth II the biggest landowner in the whole state.
The land duty became the biggest income stream for the UK authorities in Burma, a scheme that continues with Burma's transformation from a provincial unit of Britanoindian ownership. Later on, after the Japanese confused the war occupations, Burma finally gained sovereignty in 1948.
Now, liberated from domination by colonies and ready to take their own course, the new leaders of the country have identified principalism with alien domination - not good for a country that wants to build its own supremacy. Centralized controls of the country became the basis of a new state system: the new-born free Burma was in everything but its name socialistic.
Under the new constitutional system, which governs the country and defines its policies and practice, the state has been appointed the "final owner" of the entire country. Each of Myanmar's three post-independence land use regimes reflects the philosophy of the state. Whereas the British had positively defended the land laws for the people - by introducing the domination of the crown only over words such as "subject only to" or "save by" - the 1948 paper made the exception the norm.
The right of the state to take land at will - "for communal or cooperative agriculture or for leaseholders and farms with restricted liability" - was expressly laid down and no provision was laid down which enshrines a citizen's right to own land in private. Seizures of land would be conducted from here "in the interest of toilers of all ethnicities.
Nowadays in Myanmar, land is confiscated "by commercial forces" after the "enactment of the necessary law". Following a 60-year period of absenteeism, the description of each person's personal privileges returns to the state. According to the paper, the state "allows citizens" a number of land entitlements. However, since the state is still the "end owner" of the country, complete ownership of the land remains out of the question in the new Myanmar.
This has made the country one of the most common points of contention between individuals, companies and the state. In 2014, the Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal awarded Myanmar only 10 out of 100 points for Myanmar's poorest class of ownership.
Myanmar is indeed the second poorest country in terms of ownership among the surveyed nations, including Cuba, Iran and Syria. New Zealand is at the top of the real estate section of the index with a scoring of 95. In second place are 18 counties with 90 points, including Australia, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
Whilst Myanmar's overall macroeconomic value increased in the 2013-2014 period, this is not the case for ownership interests. It notes that economies with a higher level of free enterprise in the areas of GDP expansion, per head income, healthcare, training, environmentalism, the fight against extreme poverty and general well-being will "perform significantly better".
Land-use is not one of the first issues to be addressed in the debate on possible constitutional changes - but perhaps it should be.