The Effectiveness of Digitizing Land Services to Prevent Land Mafia in Vietnam

Nguyán Háu Thá, Datuk Mazlee Malik bin Idrus

Abstract


This research aims to analyze: 1) Implementation of digitization of land services. 2) Effectiveness of digitizing land services to prevent land mafia. The approach method used in this research is a sociological juridical approach. The research specifications used are analytical descriptive research. This type of data uses primary data and secondary data obtained through interviews and literature study. The data analysis method used in this research is descriptive analysis. The research results were concluded: 1). The implementation of digitization of land services is carried out through a special agrarian internet site. Currently, the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs has implemented four digital land services, including Electronic Mortgage Rights, checking certificates, Land Registration Certificates, and Land Value Zone information. There are two electronic services that will be added by the AGRARIAN Ministry, namely land sale and purchase deeds and transfer of rights. The implementation of digitalization of land services at AGRARIAN AGENCY Vietnam, apart from using a special agrarian internet site, is also carried out through the Touch application. Touch My Land is an application created to answer various community land problems. 2) The effectiveness of digitizing land services to prevent land mafia can effectively prevent land mafia practices and achieve the strategic goals of the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs.

Keywords


Digitalization; Land; Mafia; Registration.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Coffee, J. C., Jr. (2002). Understanding Enron: It’s about the gatekeepers, stupid (Columbia Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 207). Business Law, 57, 1403.

Coffee, J. C., Jr. (2003a). Corporate gatekeepers: Their past, present, and future. (Duke Law School, Working Paper No. 7). Duke Law Journal, 7.

Hunter, Susan & Bulirwa, Elizabeth & Kisseka, Edward. (1993). AIDS and agricultural production. Land use policy. 10. 241-58. 10.1016/0264-8377(93)90018-6.

Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management Review, 7(3), 297–317.

Kaldor, M., Anheier, H., & Glasius, M. (2003). Global civil society in an era of regressive globalisation. In M. Kaldor, H. Anheier, & M. Glasius (Eds.), Global civil society 2003 (pp. 3–33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keinath, A. K., & Walo, J. C. (2004, November 23). Audit committee responsibilities: Focusing on oversight, open communication, and best practices. The CPA Journal, 74(11), 22–29.

Khurana, R., & Pick, K. (2005). The social nature of boards. Brooklyn Law Review, 70(3), 1259–1285.

Laura Notess (WRI) , Peter Veit (WRI), Iliana Monterroso (WRI), Andiko (WRI), Emmanuel Sulle (WRI), Anne M. Larson (WRI), Anne-Sophie Gindroz (WRI), Julia Quaedvlieg (WRI) and Andrew Williams (WRI) - July 2018, The Scramble for Land Rights, Reducing Inequity between Communities and Companies, https://wri-indonesia.org/en/publication/scramble-land-rights

Lipton, M., & Savitt, W. (2007, May). The many myths of Lucian Bebchuk. Virginia Law Review, 93(3), 733.

Lorsch, J. (1995, January–February). Empowering the board. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 107–117.

Matheson, J. H., & Olson, B. A. (1992). Corporate law and the long term shareholder model of corporate governance. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 1313–1391.

Millstein, I. M., Gregory, H. J., & Grapsas, R. C. (2006, January). Six priorities for boards in 2006. Weil Briefing: Corporate Governance. New York: Wel, Gotsal & Manges.

Monks, R. A. G. (2005, March). Corporate governance—USA—fall 2004 reform—the wrong way and the right way. Corporate Governance, 13(2), 108.

National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) in collaboration with Mercer Delta Consulting. (2006). The role of the board in CEO succession. Washington, DC, and New York: Author.

Petra, S. T. (2006). Corporate governance reforms: Fact or fiction. Corporate Governance, 6(2), 107–115.

Rivero, J. C., & Nadler, D. A. (2003). Building a valuable relationship between CEOs and their boards. Mercer Management Journal.

Rose, N. & Wolfram, C. (2002). Regulating executive pay: Using the tax code to influence chief executive officer compensation. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(2), S138–S175.

Salwen, K. G. (1992, February 14). Shareholder groups cheer SEC’s moves on disclosure of executive compensation. Wall Street Journal, p. A-4.

Spencer Stuart, Board Services Practice. (2008). Cornerstone of the board—the nonexecutive chairman: Offering new solutions. New York: Author.

Wood, David. (1993). Forests to fields. Restoring tropical lands to agriculture. Land use policy. 10. 91-107. 10.1016/0264-8377(93)90001-Q, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11109790_Forests_to_fields_Restoring_tropical_lands_to_agriculture/citation/download




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v6i3.33287

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


View My Stats

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Daulat Hukum has been indexed in:

sinta google_scholar moraref garuda neliti Dimension Base