Is The Urban Renewal Bill Really Ready To Be Re-Tabled…

At the ‘Dialog Perdana Pembaharuan Semula Bandar’ on 30^th November 2025, the Housing and Local Government Ministry (KPKT) said it is fully prepared and ready to re-table the second reading of the Urban Renewal Bill (URB) 2025 at the Dewan Rakyat sitting subject to the decision of Prime Minister. In August, the Bill was tabled for second reading but deferred due to deep concerns and objections even from government backbenchers.

The minister said, urban renewal should not be viewed solely from the angle of aesthetics or physical development but as a moral responsibility to save lives and safeguard the basic safety of the people. He added, “We do not need to wait for a major tragedy to realise how serious this situation is”. He quoted the Jalan Padungan area where three units of shophouses built between the 1920s and 1930s were unsafe for occupation after parts of their walls or facades collapsed.

The premier dialogue session was the largest engagement drawing more than 2,000 participants to gather views and proposals from all stakeholders and the feedback received would form an essential foundation to ensure the Bill truly reflects the aspirations and needs of the people.

Firstly, we must congratulate the minister and his ministry for being so efficient. The views received at the premier dialogue just a few days ago were incorporated in the Bill and ready to re-tabled this week.

Did it go through the AGC to provide legal views and advice? Did the special select committee on infrastructure, transportation, and communication formally endorse the Bill for the second tabling? Has the Cabinet reviewed and discussed it for approval?

Or is it up to the minister who decides what goes in the Bill? Remember, on August 28, even before cabinet approval, the minister said the bill would be amended to raise the consent threshold to 80%.

Is it now more “holistic and focused” after 126 meaningful stakeholder engagements as compared to the one tabled four months ago? Does it reflect consensus and address concerns about transparency, fairness and community needs?

Given, the Jalan Padungan shophouses needs redevelopment since it was built about 100 years ago but why is the threshold of 30 years in the Bill?

This Bill is not only about number-haggling but whether redevelopment is genuinely needed and offers are attractive enough taking into consideration compensation, displacement and safeguards for affected parties. We know about the RM355 billion gross development value but why is the estimated cost for additional infrastructures to be borne by the government and the socioeconomic impact on lower income groups are still not available? How about stricter rules on developers conduct and safeguards through the courts?

There must be social equity and public trust without undermining property rights. Moral responsibility to save lives and safeguard the basic safety of the people comes later. Urban renewal should not come at the cost of fairness and justice.

Transparency and accountability are sorely needed or will we see another half-baked Bill in the august house?

What say you…

 

Saleh Mohammed