86 Chapter 6 | FINDINGS - SABAH 6.26 While it cannot be disputed that the LSD may have issued such notices, it is doubtful that the manner in which those notices have been posted does effectively serve the purpose of informing the affected natives of applications made by third parties. The LSD admitted to the Inquiry that the notices were merely posted on the notice boards on their premises without any other efforts to identify those who had made prior applications with respect to the same land and to proactively communicate the notices to them. 6.27 The Inquiry heard and empathised with communities who had to travel long distances, incurring high costs, to district LSD offices or to the LSD headquarters to check on their land applications only to be told to return again as their applications were still being processed. In case no. SD43, village head Mr Jitoh Abdul (W52) said that in 1980s, a trip to the Beluran LSD office took one week by sampan and another two hours by car. The Inquiry found that the authorities had failed to appreciate this and to pro-actively find a better way to inform people on the status of their land applications. 6.28 The Inquiry was told that because of the thousands of applications to be processed by the Land Offices in the districts, notices were posted on their notice boards in a haphazard manner, often overlapping one another. Despite recommendations from various studies and complaints to remedy this situation, nothing has been done except that the notices are now in Malay (whereas until the 1990s, notices were only in English). 6.29 The highest proportion of the complaints received by the Inquiry was on the delay in processing land applications. Much of the follow-up after the submission of the application is expected to be done by the applicants themselves despite inconveniences for those living in rural and remote areas. Nevertheless, some individuals or community leaders have made several visits to follow up on their applications but typically, these queries were done orally. The LSD does not record oral inquiries, so it is often easy to deny that such follow-up was done. The fact that the LSD has never considered an effective way to inform rural applicants is itself a failure to proactively assist communities. Land Enquiries and Appeals 6.30 The Land Enquiry (LE) provided under section 13 is an important avenue for redress by which the ACLR can take to address the issue of overlapping land applications. After the end of the 30 days’ notice, the ACLR is expected to deal with overlapping applications through an LE. However, the process of calling the LE is neither very clear nor automatic as many witnesses complained about the extreme difficulty to get a response from the ACLR to their call for a LE. 6.31 To the credit of some ACLRs, investigations and mediations have been conducted after receiving complaints from communities of decisions that were not in their favour. However, ACLRs are often reluctant to call for an investigation as the process is often long and complicated. 6.32 For communities with NCR claims who are contesting with rich, well-connected or better educated applicants, an LE may not necessarily yield positive results. Mr Wilson Kulung (W31) (case P1), representing 328 villagers from Kg Rumantai, Ranau was among a few who managed to undergo such a LE after persisting with their request to the ACLR for two years. The community has been living in the area since 1940’s and has even received support from the Sabah Rubber Industry Board (LIGS) to develop their land. According to the Ranau ACLR, Mr Bernard Kimin@Joseph (W32) who conducted the LE, the land which the Rumantai community is claiming as their NCR land was applied for by, and approved to, Mr Masugal chapter 6_a4.indd 86 7/5/13 6:47 PM