Between Private Ordering and Public Regulation: Reassessing the Legal and Governance Framework for Boundary Fences in Malaysia

Abstract

Boundary fences are central to neighbour relations in Malaysia, yet they exist within a fragmented and largely unregulated legal framework. The National Land Code 1965 is silent on fence-related obligations, and municipal by-laws regulate only technical aspects, leaving substantive responsibilities undefined. This gap—combined with institutional fragmentation and reliance on private negotiation—produces frequent disputes and inconsistent outcomes. Using Property Rights Theory, Neighbour Law, and Regulatory Governance Theory, this article analyses Malaysia’s legal deficiencies and compares them with established frameworks in Australia, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong. The comparative insights illustrate how structured procedures, cost-sharing rules, and accessible tribunals reduce conflict. The article proposes a multi-tiered reform model, including a Boundary Fences Act, harmonised national standards, notice-and-consent mechanisms, and tribunal-based dispute resolution. A coherent regulatory framework is essential for promoting legal certainty, neighbour harmony, and effective governance in Malaysia’s urban residential environment.