URA: Between Dignity, Transparency, and Real Priorities

Once in a while, someone will promise the moon and the stars. You won’t even have to reach for them, they’ll be delivered to your doorstep. Many will be over the moon, swept up by visions that once seemed impossible. Some might even believe the moon has been served on a stick. But others may view it as just another illusion, barking at the moon, knowing no one’s really listening.

This seems to be the case with the proposed Urban Redevelopment Act (URA), a bold promise by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT). According to its Director-General, the URA is designed to ensure redevelopment is fair, benefits property owners, and contributes to economic growth. Its intent is noble, to revitalise old, abandoned, or dilapidated buildings in our major cities. But as always, the devil is in the details.

The URA is said to be built upon three principles: owner consent, protection of original owners’ rights, and a clear development timeframe. It’s not, we are assured, a “house seizure act.” But how confident can we be that it truly safeguards dignity and long-term welfare, especially for senior citizens who form the bulk of those affected?

The Big Questions

One of the most contested aspects is the consent threshold. On what basis was it set? Who decided 30-year-old buildings are ripe for redevelopment when even the Prime Minister referenced buildings aged 60 years?

And what of the “rights” of original owners? Is a new unit, perhaps slightly larger, truly sufficient compensation for the emotional, social, and economic disruption they must endure? Higher maintenance costs, taxes, and living expenses may come with these “modern upgrades.” The government has already admitted it cannot subsidise maintenance costs indefinitely. So how do we expect retirees and low-income communities to survive in these so-called “sustainable” environments?

Larger units may sound appealing, but will they improve the quality of life, or merely increase financial burdens in the twilight years of these residents?

The Story on the Ground

Look no further than the 1Razak Mansion. The adjacent park remains unmaintained and unhanded over for years. Maintenance fees have soared by 240%, yet the management can’t even afford a fresh coat of paint. Green spaces are lost, and long-standing communities are being broken up, all in the name of redevelopment.

In Flat Kuchai Jaya, residents are asking for the URA to be expedited. Hopefully, they’re aware of what lies ahead. At Cantik Apartments, residents only needed minor repairs and painting, but some can’t even afford the current RM80 monthly maintenance fee. This isn’t just about buildings. It’s about people’s lives and livelihoods.

A People-First Approach?

At the launch of Warisan Kuala Lumpur, the Prime Minister championed a shift from mega-projects to people-centric, heritage-based development. This must apply to the URA too. We need clean, dignified public spaces and community facilities, not a tale of two cities where one flourishes and the other fades.

Developers might see the URA as a means to optimise land use, but who’s optimising the livelihoods of the people who already live there? Redevelopment driven solely by profitability often ignores the broader urban planning objectives, community well-being, public spaces, environmental sustainability.

Too Many Gaps

There are worrying gaps in the URA draft:

How will disputes be resolved fairly? What about the status of Malay Reserve Land? Where’s the protection against stalled or failed projects? Where are the guarantees from developers? What happens when developers don’t deliver?

There’s also talk of a new law to regulate property management. Yet we only have 594 licensed firms to manage over 26,000 strata schemes. KL alone has over 784,000 stratified units, and COBKL receives over 8,000 complaints annually. Property values suffer due to poor management. This needs urgent attention before enacting any new law.

Act 118, which is supposed to protect buyers and landowners, also needs an overhaul. We need better enforcement, clearer jurisdiction between federal and state authorities, and an end to loopholes that allow developers to abandon or mismanage projects.

Getting Our Priorities Right

KPKT’s 122 action plans for the year have placed URA at the top of the list. But is it really the most urgent? Especially when over 111,000 sick or abandoned housing units were recorded across 726 projects by end-2024, many under the affordable housing banner.

Redevelopment cannot become a new cloak for gentrification, where the poor are priced out, communities displaced, and profits reign supreme. Are we focusing on commissions or the people?

The Ministry must stop assuming it knows best. It’s time to truly listen, to residents, not just consultants or tour briefings. Dig into the Auditor-General’s Reports and Public Accounts Committee findings. Learn from the past before shaping the future.

Accountability

If the Ministry is serious about transparency, why not provide monthly updates on major developments? Lip-service no longer cuts it. Using the URA to bypass legal safeguards is not the mark of a caring government. Urban renewal must be about inclusion, not just construction.

Redevelopment involving fewer than 10,000 people could set a precedent across the whole of Peninsular Malaysia. The stakes are high. Let’s prioritise policies grounded in dignity, transparency, and real people-focused outcomes.

If done right, this could be a blessing bagai bulan jatuh ke riba. If not, it’ll be just another broken promise bagai bulan kesiangan—a moon that shines too late.

What say you?