With reference to Susan Loone's report 'Cattle, goat farmers cry foul over KFC meals for police men', (Aug 10), "trespass" to land is when the farmers remain upon Gemilang Waras Sdn Bhd's land developed under a joint venture by the new developer of Bukit Tinggi II township, Labur Bina Sdn Bhd, without lawful justification.

The policemen are there to help the developer exercise his lawful right of moving earth lorries to and fro and buying KFC for lunch for the policemen should not be considered corruption because the police are not there to help the developer do anything unlawful, and as for siding the developer against the farmers, it is probably because the farmers have no legal right over the land.

I don't know the exact situation in Bukit Tinggi but it appears to be a "classic" confrontation between squatters and new landowner/developer.

Even if the farmers have been living on the land for over 70 years and had bred cattle and goats there for three generations, it does not mean that they have any legal right to remain on the land, once it has been acquired legally by the developer or a land owner with whom the developer joins venture.

Unlike in the United Kingdom, there is no right to "adverse possession" here. (Adverse possession means that remaining on the land, albeit with no legal right for a period of time long enough (say 12 years) without the owner(s) asserting rights any time in that period would constitute a permanent bar against the owner from recovering the land from the occupiers).

Assuming that the Bukit Tinggi land was a State land, the State authority will have the absolute right to alienate it to any developer against which the farmers, as squatters, have no right to challenge, even if fairness and equity are on the farmers' side.

This is because public interest premised on the State authority's discretion to alienate for development purposes override all private considerations of justice and equity.

Yet this is a case, as in many others, the question of legal right is not the only issue, but social and political considerations play an important part of policies of all concerned.

The State in alienating the land upon which farmers have bred their cattle and goats for three generations cannot just favour development or capitalistic development endeavors without regard, at all to social welfare and justice to the landless who still have to ply their trade and eke their traditional livelihood.

In this connection, the State could either provide the farmers with an alternative land upon which their cattle and goats can graze but if that is not possible (when there is no grazing land), then the alternative is to alienate the land to the new land owner subject to conditions - extending accommodation to the farmers either by way of procuring for the farmers an alternative site for farming or providing compensation by way of cash or units of houses built.

The developer of course can go to court to enforce their property rights but technicalities can protract the case for many years during which time, the cyclical nature of the property industry may turn more adverse against the developer.

All things said, the country should have a national policy of what to do to assist the landless occupying lands all over the country (including those of potential development value) over which they don't have an iota of legal right except the claim to compassion, understanding and social justice .

Concerns that should more appropriately be addressed by the government rather than private entrepreneurs like a developer driven by profits under our capitalistic milieu.