[1] The so-called Urban Renewal Act (URA) has been touted as a game-changer, something that would revive our cities, improve living conditions and leave us all “advanced, prosperous and inclusive”.[1]  The government has assured us that our rights will be protected, that there will be no forced acquisition or property seizure, that the government and not developers will drive the whole process, that the bill “is a solution to the struggle between the people and the developers that has been going on for a long time”.[2]

[2] In the first place, the government is being entirely disingenuous when it insists that no one will be forced to sell against their will; the whole thrust of the URA is to lower the legal threshold for the compulsory acquisition of private property. Once the minister or state authority declares any building or housing as an ‘urban renewal area’, “people’s houses, condominiums or any building in the designated area are subject to compulsory seizure under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of ‘urban renewal’”.[3]

[3] It also empowers developers to identify projects for urban renewal and initiate consultations with proprietors for the purpose of acquiring their property. If passed, the Act will result in a feeding frenzy as developers manoeuvre – with political backing, no doubt – to acquire older buildings in valuable prime areas through persuasion, deception or bribery. Indeed, it is already happening in anticipation of the URA being passed into law.[4]

[4] Of course, our political leaders will as usual promise great things but are their promises worth anything?  In a recent speech, the Federal Territories minister, for example, waxed lyrical about the importance of ensuring that development be aligned with “supporting infrastructure such as schools, clinics, road networks, public transport pressure and green spaces”.[5] The reality, however, is something else.

[5] In Bangsar, to take one example, dozens of new high-rise condos are being built or are in the planning stages. So far, we have heard nothing about how the minister intends to cope with the increased population density or what plans are in place to increase parking facilities, provide green spaces or provide all the other amenities she spoke about. They promise “redevelopment, regeneration and revitalization”[6]; what we see is congestion, traffic jams and a lower quality of life.

[6] The question is can we trust politicians and bureaucrats to act fairly when they are the ones who have consistently sold us out to developers? It is not for nothing that all over the nation, neighbourhoods and communities have been crying foul as massive projects are forced upon them despite their protests and concerns. Indeed, saving our neighbourhoods from the clutches of rapacious developers is one of the existential struggles of our time. We need to curb the power of the government over our lives and property, not empower them further.

[7] Make no mistake, the URA is bad news for homeowners. It legitimises an unholy alliance between property developers and their political backers and legalizes the seizure of private property under the guise of urban renewal. No neighbourhood will be safe. We need to take heed of the warning by Lawyers for Liberty that the URA is “the biggest danger to the constitutional right to ownership of property since independence”.[7]

[8] Minister Nga claims that he has carried out more than 101 URA-related engagement sessions, one of the highest number of stakeholder engagements in the nation’s history apparently.[8] But did he really listen to their views? Has he listened to the views of the National House Buyers Association, or the many NGOs who have expressed alarm over the bill? Has he even listened to the views of his own MPs or members of the parliamentary select committee all of whom insist that the bill should be reconsidered? Instead of hiding behind vague consultations, he should be transparent and let us know who he consulted with and what their views really were. 

[9] Rarely has a piece of legislation stirred such controversy, alarm and angst but still Minister Nga stubbornly presses on, refusing to heed the valid concerns of a plurality of groups. That the DAP – once a staunch defender of our constitutional rights – is leading the charge to foist such an anti-democratic piece of legislation upon us all should tell us how much they have compromised principle for power.

[Dennis Ignatius | Monday, August 25th 2025]