URA – GDV And KPI Vs Oath And Priorities…

I am still wondering why KPKT is aggressively pushing for the Urban Renewal Act (URA). The bill was tabled for its first reading on 21/8/25 in Parliament. It was meant to address and overhaul existing outdated legislation and regulations governing the redevelopment of dilapidated urban areas and making it easier for developers to acquire land for redevelopment. 

My earlier articles on URA under malay.today are as follows: “URA: Between Dignity, Transparency and Real Priorities” – 8/5/25, “URA – A Plea To The Prime Minister” – 22/3/25 and “URA: Addressing Urban Decay or Creating Opportunities for Developers?” – 27/2/25. 

Meantime, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Communications (PSCITC) had raised issues that are yet to be resolved. Even some government MPs called for the second reading to be postponed, citing concerns over the consent threshold. The Construction Industry Development Board said buildings can last 50 to 60 years.

The selling points include improved infrastructure and public facilities, generating economic benefits, such as increased tax revenue and job creation and redevelopment projects in Kuala Lumpur alone are expected to generate an estimated gross development value (GDV) of RM332.5 billion. But who pays for the improved infrastructure and public facilities?

In April, KPKT minister said the URA was in its final stage, with the final draft of the legislation submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) for final vetting. It underwent extensive consultations, describing it as one of the most thorough exercises ever conducted for a piece of legislation. Anwar has assured that there will be no forced evictions or changes to the ethnic composition of any area.

Much have been written about lack of transparency, potential violations of property rights, gentrification and displacement of residents and abuse of power.   

Perusing the Bill, I am of the view that most of the above concerns are still not resolved and wonder what happened to all the feedbacks from the extensive consultations including with PSCITC. 

A clarification was made saying the Bill will not abolish the requirement for unanimous consent of property owners before any building can be demolished but that applies only if the proprietor voluntary apply for redevelopment (Clause 19 (1)(a)). The bigger concern is that the developer can invoke the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (compulsory acquisition) under Clause 21.4. 

The proof that the Bill is developer-driven is in Clause 17. What happened to the role of the Commissioner of Buildings (COB) who is an enforcement officer responsible for administering and enforcing the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA) when developer can freely go and identify deterioration of the building while being managed by a management corporation (MC)? Issues like electrical, water, sewerage, and drainage systems are for the MC to tackle with COB enforcement. Through my own experience the COB is ineffective.

We want to follow the Singapore HDB concept but are not supported by any unifying framework which enables redevelopment of a common class of public housing. They also have a variety of housing options to cater to different needs, ages and backgrounds.

The Singapore model is the result of long-term planning and forward-looking approach. Empowering communities is a key part of the strategy to make Singapore a great city to live, work, and play by shaping inclusive, vibrant, and distinctive neighborhoods with strong community ownership and engagement where current and future generations can fulfill their aspirations. It also supports Singapore’s economic growth by strengthening economic gateways and business nodes, rejuvenating key precincts and supporting innovation.

I don’t see all of the above in the Bill except developers having easy pathways to enrich themselves with relaxed oversight from the authorities and no provision to ensure that affordable housing will be included. Bear in mind our ageing society with more diverse aspirations.

A conflicting issue arises since there is a provision of an Urban Renewal Mediation Committee whose allowances are determined by the minister.

Strangely, KPKT still could not provide the full financial impact of the Bill on the government but could easily estimate the GDV of the 139 pieces of land in Kuala Lumpur since mid-2024.

I would strongly urge for KPKT to withdraw this Bill and truly follow the Singapore model and sincerely support Malaysia’s economic growth in these uncertain times. Reviewing and strengthening the various local councils need urgent attention and not modernisation. Request for more allocations to improve living conditions in the current dilapidated houses. 

We need to balance economic priorities and the right to do business, versus the rights of all Malaysians as captured under the Constitution. Make the best use of our resources for the benefit of all Malaysians.  

Take heed from Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) who said, “The siloed approach between developers and local authorities must be replaced with comprehensive planning that considers the overall impact on the area”. We need balanced development including supporting infrastructures, education, amenities, green spaces, transport, and proper planning just like Singapore.

I would also like to remind all ministers including the prime minister of the Oath of Office and Allegiance that you will faithfully discharge the duties of the office to the best of your ability, bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia, and will preserve, protect and defend its Constitution.

Experts have raised the issue of being potentially unconstitutional because it could override individual property rights, particularly Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. I would now assume that since the Bill has gone through AGC, there is no issue but am not sure on what grounds since KPKT is silent on this matter.

By the way, doctors, lawyers, engineers and others have their oath and pledge of ethical and professional standards. Do developers have one?

Interestingly, government backbenchers warned that passing the bill in its current form could be a “major political mistake”.

What say you…  

 

Saleh Mohammed