Is the URA Madani Compliant…

The KPKT minister may say it is the call of duty to immediately implement the Urban Renewal Act (URA). But is he clipping people’s wings, cracking the whip and employing his way or the highway?

Let us take a journey back to the principles of the Madani government. It centres around building a civilised, just, and inclusive society guided by core values; M: Sustainability (keMampanan), A: Prosperity (kesejAhteraan), D: Innovation (Daya cipta), A: Respect (hormAt), N: Trust (keyakiNan) and I: Compassion (Ihsan).

It emphasises transparent governance, rule of law, good governance with a focus on justice, dignity, and human rights through cooperation, inclusivity, and fair distribution of opportunities and resources across all ethnic and religious groups in the country. 

Let us have a closer look at the respective Madani core values in relation to the URA.

SUSTAINABILITY is to maintain or support economic, environmental, or social processes without depleting natural resources. Social sustainability focuses on the human effects of economic systems and includes eradicating poverty as well as combating inequality. In the URA, there is no full social impact study done on original owners. Probably what is really sustainable are projects, jobs created and profits that can be made by developers. 

PROSPERITY for whom is quite clear. Many of the 139 sites under URA in KL are government land (public and institutional properties) that comes with lower valuation and the gross development value (GDV) is about RM350 billion. Original owners may have to take loans to own a bigger new unit but as stated earlier there will be projects and profits readily available for developers. 

INNOVATION is surely lacking as most things are skewed for the benefit of developers, even starting the process to meet thresholds. KPKT could have thought of profit-sharing or creating special-purpose-vehicle (SPV) companies with owners for the development to meet the core value of Prosperity while combating inequality. This is in line with Anwar’s vision to redevelop the poor.

RESPECT is clearly non-existent as the minister maintained that the URA bill will not be withdrawn despite mounting opposition even from government lawmakers. Further, he said the government will raise the consent threshold to 80% across the board and clause 18 will be amended to ensure demographic data is factored in. Did he get the approval from the cabinet, if not, where is the respect towards the cabinet? Surely, these suggestions would have surfaced during the over 105 engagement sessions with stakeholders.

TRUST is suspect since the minister said the threshold was established in 2013 following an in-depth three-year study. He gave his assurance that compensation for property owners involved will exceed the market value but the Bill did not quantify. Gentrification will surely happen when he admitted that if the value of the units does not allow them to buy a new home, they can take out a loan. I am guessing if all the ‘makciks’ who met him at the parliament, hoping to improve the quality of their life, can qualify for a loan. Headlines such as “URA to empower owners to take lead in redevelopment” is misleading since the clause pertaining to this appeared restrictive. Again, can the ‘makciks’ evaluate what is best for them during negotiations.

The minister said, even at the federal level he does not sit on the executive committee but he is the chairman of the Federal Executive Committee.

COMPASSION clearly existed for developers since there is not only incentive for them but also provision for extension of time to commence renewal project. But the protection for owners is a simple clause 24. 

Now, let’s move to transparency, rule of law, good governance with a focus on justice, dignity and human rights.

While stressing that the most important thing is improving the living quality of our people, URA is silent on the affordability on property taxes, maintenance fees and sinking fund. Is this sustainable for the original owners who may have taken loan and burdened with extra costs? 

The extra financial implications to the government such as infrastructure costs still cannot be ascertained but the GDV figure was already available since the beginning. The government is currently fighting fiscal deficit and I doubt the costs have been provided in RMK13. 

The minister agreed many of our housing estates were built in the 1960s and 1970s and their structures, utilities and facilities are no longer up to standard. If so, how did the 30-years building-age come into play and how many of the 30-year-old buildings have pressing needs for renewal and are dilapidated and some owners have not fully paid their loans? In Hong Kong the age criterion is about 50 years.

URA may be an agenda for planned, systematic and comprehensive urban redevelopment but what we urgently need now is a systematic and comprehensive housing policy to meet housing needs and avoid overhang. The latest property market report shows that nearly 27,000 completed residential units worth RM16.4 billion remain unsold in Malaysia. Further, there are 113 abandoned projects with a collective GDV of RM130.83 billion as of December 31, 2024. With a GDV of RM355 billion and unit cost of RM500,000, we will be building 710,000 new units in KL soon.  

We can no longer afford to delay in dealing with unsold and abandoned units. The ageing buildings and outdated infrastructure only need some government spending. For the slums, it was the inefficiencies of KPKT and local councils for not maintaining it properly. We know property developers are influential and powerful, they can wait a little longer and do regeneration and revitalisation jobs first. A government’s moral duty should not be outsourced to developers.

A couple days ago, Research for Social Advancement (Refsa), a think tank, gave a good idea. They said companies were moving out of older office blocks and we should look into rejuvenating vacant office buildings into residential units. Potentials include Wisma SPS, Imbi Plaza, Wisma New Asia, Menara Maybank, Loke Yew Building, Menara Raja Laut, KH Tower and Bangungan Lee Yan Lian and most have great accessibility to facilities and public transportation. Or do we want to leave it to decay and later call for redevelopment? 

The vacant spaces amounted to about 29% of the 115 million square feet of office space in KL. Meantime, Malaysia’s property market softened in 1H2025 as transactions volume fell and launches withheld amid modest sales and rising overhang.

A tribunal should be the control mechanism and not mediation and the executive committee which is chaired by the minister. It gives considerable room for patronage and even corruption without proper checks and balances.

On scrutiny, did the Attorney-General Chambers perused the Bill properly and did not detect any conflicting interests and proper protection to original owners? Were the Cabinet members adequately briefed on the wider implications and the consequences or was it a short discussion? Are there weaknesses in the cabinet’s legislative process?

Now it is not a matter of respecting the wishes of the 80%, blocking projects or enhancing existing asset values because house ownership is not a democratic process. We should be revitalising and not marginalising the other 20%.

I don’t think people are playing with sentiment and engaging in destructive politics but genuine concerns on a Bill that is half-baked and contains serious shortcomings while threatening property rights. It must fully safeguard public interest, empowers communities and uphold the highest standards of professional practice with proper checks and balances. 

The Madani philosophy is a comprehensive vision to restore dignity, foster national prosperity and promote good governance built on noble values and ethical leadership. Let’s keep it that way.

By the way, why is the Political Funding Act still not given priority by the government?

What say you

 

Saleh Mohammed