Murray Hunter
Ramasamy on Merdeka & the URA
P Ramasamy
Aug 31, 2025
Shouldn’t PM Anwar order an inquiry into the URA Bill?
Transport Minister Anthony Loke should not be disingenuous in claiming that the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Bill was simply the result of a collective Cabinet decision. Yes, the Cabinet headed by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim did endorse the bill, but that endorsement cannot conceal the fact that the bill originated from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government under DAP Minister Nga Kor Ming.
Nga staunchly defended the Bill as essential to rejuvenate decaying urban centres plagued by dilapidated buildings and slums. While the objective may have sounded appealing, the real question is whether Cabinet members were adequately briefed on the wider implications.
It is doubtful if meaningful discussions took place or whether what happened were more like superficial “teh tarik” sessions rather than genuine deliberations on the consequences of such a far-reaching law.
The most contentious aspect of the bill centred on the issue of consent thresholds for redevelopment. Initially, the thresholds were tiered: 80 percent for buildings below 30 years old, 75 percent for those above 30 years, and 51 percent for abandoned projects.
However, when the bill was hastily withdrawn, this framework was abruptly abandoned and replaced with a single across-the-board 80 percent threshold.
Who made this decision? Was it discussed and approved by the Cabinet, or was it an ad hoc solution crafted by Nga after the backlash? These unanswered questions only deepen the suspicion that the bill was rushed and poorly conceived.
Having been part of the DAP for 18 years, I am familiar with its ideological leanings. Despite its self-branding as a social democratic party, DAP has long displayed strong affinity with private sector developers. Whether this stems from its philosophy of economic development or other factors is open to debate, but the orientation towards the interests of property developers is unmistakable.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the URA Bill—despite its rhetoric of uplifting urban communities—might have been more developer-friendly than people-centric.
This suspicion was reinforced when Umno leaders voiced their displeasure not only about the Bill’s content but also about the aggressive manner in which the DAP pushed for its passage. Indeed, one senior Umno figure remarked that Umno’s rejection of the Bill symbolised its discomfort with the DAP’s role in government.
Prime Minister Anwar, preoccupied with multiple national challenges, may have accepted the bill at face value, seduced by its promise of slum clearance and urban revitalisation. But in doing so, he appears to have overlooked its potential pitfalls. The superficial attention paid to the details meant that when the bill’s negative implications were exposed, Anwar had no choice but to halt its passage.
If so, this raises an uncomfortable question: was the Prime Minister misled into supporting a bill that was neither carefully thought through nor properly scrutinised?
Loke insists the Cabinet collectively approved the Bill, but collective approval does not absolve the initiators of responsibility. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, under Nga, was the driving force. Cabinet colleagues may have consented, but not all were enthusiastic. Many PKR and Umno MPs harboured reservations—not only about the bill’s effects but also about DAP’s high-handedness in championing it.
This explains why the bill’s collapse has been read in political terms as much as legislative. For Umno, the rejection was less about policy details and more about signalling discontent with DAP’s dominance in shaping government policy.
What is most troubling is the way Nga swiftly suggested an 80 percent threshold for all categories of buildings immediately after the bill’s withdrawal. Did this proposal have Cabinet’s endorsement, or was it another unilateral pronouncement? Such unilateralism, if true, undermines collective Cabinet responsibility and feeds the perception that DAP was steering the government in directions unfavourable to ordinary urban residents.
Given the gravity of the issue, Anwar must not treat the matter lightly. In the spirit of Merdeka and in the larger public interest, he should set up an independent inquiry to investigate how the URA Bill was conceived, why it was presented in such an ill-prepared form, and whether the Cabinet was adequately informed before giving approval.
Ultimately, the central question remains: was the URA Bill crafted for the benefit of developers or for the welfare of the people living in urban areas? If it was indeed a developer-driven initiative, then the government must be honest with the rakyat. Urban renewal is not inherently objectionable, but it must be carried out with fairness, transparency, and genuine concern for affected communities—not as a boon for private developers.
The URA Bill episode has exposed weaknesses in the Cabinet’s legislative process, the ideological inclinations of the DAP, and the risk of pushing through poorly deliberated laws in Parliament. Anthony Loke may defend Cabinet unity, but that cannot erase the fact that mistakes were made in the conception and promotion of the bill. Nga Kor Ming and his ministry must bear responsibility for pushing a deeply flawed proposal that threatened to undermine public confidence.
The Prime Minister must now act decisively. An inquiry into the origins, preparation, and attempted passage of the URA Bill is essential—not only to establish accountability but also to reassure Malaysians that their government is not in the business of serving developers at the expense of the people.
Only with such accountability can the government restore trust and ensure that urban renewal, when it comes, is genuinely for the people rather than for profit.
Independence beyond rhetoric: Honesty, unity and justice for Malaysia
True and meaningful independence for our country demands leaders who are honest, sincere, and committed to doing what is necessary for Malaysians.
Independence cannot be reduced to empty slogans or contradictory stances on fighting corruption. While political opponents of the government are hounded and arrested, corporate elites and friends of the regime are spared. This double standard erodes the very essence of freedom.
The resilience of Malaysians lies in their desire to enjoy the fruits of independence and share them with others. If the country has managed to avoid major ethnic and religious strife, credit must be accorded to the people, not the leaders.
How can independence be safeguarded if leaders say one thing to the world and another to their domestic audience? How can Malaysia serve as an example of multiracialism and diversity when its leaders constantly oscillate between unity and Malay hegemony? How can the nation prosper if communities are pitted against each other merely to secure the power of those at the top?
Independence also means truth in governance. Leaders must not exaggerate foreign investment figures to secure political legitimacy, nor deny the scale of the nation’s foreign debt. Minority communities must not be deprived of their rights under the pretext of protecting the majority.
True independence requires ending the cancer of ethnic and religious enmity. Laws must serve the common good, not the narrow interests of certain groups. Independence must put the nation on a trajectory of reducing ethnic and religious politics. Unfortunately, such politics remain rampant because leaders lack the will to embrace a shared vision that transcends race and religion.
How can independence be meaningful if leaders themselves are unwilling or unable to rise above divisive politics? It is not for such leaders to lecture Malaysians about the meaning of independence. They are hardly role models to be proud of.
Malaysia attained independence on August 31, 1957, without bloodshed. Yet, even after throwing off colonial and imperial domination, the challenge of overcoming neocolonialism—in its political, economic, and cultural forms—remains formidable.
True independence means honesty, unity, and justice. Without these, the word merdeka rings hollow.
