I bought a NEW Apartment/Flat/Condominium Unit, and after 30 years, I have finally paid off my LOAN, and finally it is mine, and then I am informed that the block has been DECLARED a Urban Renewal Project - There was a VOTE, and I voted against - But 80% of the fellow owners of the units voted YES - so, I will lose my HOME... This is UNJUST. The 80% may be just owners, not actually living in the units - and for them, it was NOT a HOME - just an investment?
I have been living in my family home for years, and this was my home in my younger days, the home where my parents lived before they past away... and now, it is a URBAN DEVELOPMENT Area, and I will lose the home, the memories, etc - This is UNJUST.
In Malaysia, nobody can build unless the government approves the plan, the building material, confirms it has been build according to approved specifications, and issues a Certificate of Fitness > so why are we talking about 30 year old buildings... is that the NEW lifespan of homes in Malaysia? Houses are meant to last 100s of years - it is not a car, fridge, TV?
Urban Renewal Bill seems to talking about OWNERS - what about the Tenants, especially the tenants who have been living there for a long time, maybe 10 years or more????
Consent threshold is not just 80%, but also 75%(if more than 30 years old), and if it is UGLY (a visual inspection report ), then it is only 51%. - but then, did not the Government(i.e. the Local Government,...) approve it.
One problem in flats/apartments/condominium is the maintenance of common areas and facilities, stairs, elevators, etc. As in Tamans and other housing, we pay the Local Council annually money as 'cukai pintu' and the Local Government's responsibility/duty to to maintain and upkeep common areas, roads, drains, sign boards - the house owner is only responsible for the upkeep of his house (not even the drains outside in front of the houses.
LOGICALLY, the same must apply for flats/condominiums/apartments - ALL common areas and facilities like staircase/elevators/garbage shoots/common walkways in front of the units, etc should be the responsibility of the LOCAL COUNCIL(Local Government) who will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of ALL common areas and facilities - after all they too pay the 'Cukai Pintu' annually - it is ABSURD to ask the residents to be RESPONSIBLE for Lifts, common areas, facilities > THIS IS THE FIRST REFORM NEEDED, and end the discrimination against home owners simply because the inhabit in home units in FLATS, APARTMENTS, CONDOMINIUMS, or even shopping lots..
Under the Urban Renewal Bill, Who is the OWNER? Is it the BANK for those still paying off their LOAN? Normally, the Bank transfers back the Title once you have settled the LOAN...a question that needs to be clarified..
Consent threshold
19. (1) For the purpose of carrying out an urban renewal project,the consent threshold is as follows:
(a) where the proprietor voluntarily apply to the Federal Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee to carry out an urban renewal project, the consent threshold shall be unanimous consent; or
(b) where an urban renewal project is carried out by the Federal Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee—
(i) for a building which is thirty years of or less, the consent threshold shall be eighty per cent;
(ii) for a building which is more than thirty years, the consent threshold shall be seventy-five per cent;
(iii) for an abandoned building, the consent threshold shall be fifty-one per cent; or
(iv) for a building which a visual inspection report has been issued by a Professional Engineer with Practising Certificate under paragraph 17(c), the consent threshold shall be fifty-one per cent
If they are just going to UPGRADE or build again a BETTER apartment/flat/condominium/housing area - requiring me to be housed temporarily elsewhere freely, and then I get a NEW improved unit for FREE as a replacement of the older unit, then it MAY BE FAIR AND OK.
But now, it seems they may just ask me to leave, and compensate me with money -' benefit of not less favorable than the offer of benefit to which he was offered before the carrying out of the urban renewal project'
The moment that there are rumors that a building block or Taman is going to subject to Urban Rural Development - the house prices reasonably will drop...
What does 'benefit of not less favorable than the offer of benefit to which he was offered before the carrying out of the urban renewal project' - the payment of monies deemed to be market value???? Will that even be sufficient to buy a new house of similar size in a similar area? Given that cost of property has RISEN, even if the person gets market value for the house/HOME may be far than sufficient to buy a new home...that means the taking of NEW LOANS and being indebted YET again for many many years - where is the money coming from if the owner has already retired and old? Note that maybe 20% did not want to agree to urban development ... but they were forced to abandon homes because the required percentage agreed - that is why it maybe should remain 100% - not reduced to 80%, 75% or even 51%
Home for home in the REDEVELOPED location?
That is the most JUST - meaning the home owner is GUARANTEED a new home at the same location after the redevelopment project, with NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT - and his temporary home whilst waiting for the urban redevelopment project is completed is also provided.
BUT the present UR BILL does not provide for this...Is the Urban Renewal BILL not for the benefit of current owners/tenants - but really for the DEVELOPER, Financial Institutions like Banks(new Loans). or other residents in the area only? Is it a WAY to change the demography of the area, by removing the poor and middle class to be replaced with a 'higher class' of people...
Earlier the government removed 'squatters' or 'urban settlers' on the grounds their homes were on someone else's land - The 'focus' was to get rid of them - but what has happened to these people - did the government CARE? Now, the Urban Renewal BILL seeks to change the need for 100% approval of owners, to make it 80%(or 75% or even 51%) of the owners - thus forcing out 20% or more LEGAL house owners, who are happy with their homes now, OUT in the guise of RENEWAL - or is it really a form of 'EVICTION" in an effort to increase BUSINESS for others, and maybe even ultimately change the CLASS of people residing in the area?
30 YEARS IS OLD - Is the government now admitting that they approved 'sub-standard' housings/buildings that could only LAST for 30 YEARS? Houses and buildings are meant to LAST centuries...Did the government fail to ensure the standards? Did the government approve buildings not built according to specs? Will there be an overall impact on all other houses/buildings in Malaysia - would the prices DROP if it is more than 30 years old???
If it was a LOW COST Flat - would the Urban Renewal Bill guarantee that a better low cost flat will be build - or will it change to some high class housing project, or even some commercial center?
All the proposed law says is 'has been offered to remain in the urban renewal area unless the interested person decides otherwise' - it is unclear? Is it HOME for HOME with no additional payment? Or is just an opportunity to buy a UNIT in the new project - meaning you may have to pay much much more that 'any compensation' received for your old HOME..?
Some WORRY that this may be an exercise to get rid of the current owners/tenants and get in a higher class of new owners/tenants?
PROTECTION OF INTEREST
Protection of interested person24. The Federal Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee shall ensure that the interested person who has agreed to participate in an urban renewal project—
(a) has received an offer of benefit of not less favourable than the offer of benefit to which he was offered before the carrying out of the urban renewal project;
(b) has been offered to remain in the urban renewal area unless the interested person decides otherwise; and
(c) being informed of the progress of the urban renewal project upon request.
When the words are VAGUE - worry because it may not be what you think. It does not seem HOME for HOME after renewal project with NO NEED to make any additional payment?
It may mean, you lost your current home BUT gets an offer to buy a NEW HOME which maybe triple or even more that the price. That will only benefit the RICH - not the poor, not the senior citizen who has already retired...or has stopped income generating activities...who make have to take out ANOTHER BANK LOAN - but given the facts, may not even earn or generate needed income to pay off the new loan - then default - then home auctioed off - but the money the bank recovered may not be sufficient to settle the Bank loan - so still in debt...then maybe made a BANKRUPT - so no 'holidays' overseas mmm
The Government need be HONEST about things....
Sadly MPs, many of them, are living in homes that are NOT AT ALL at RISK of any 'urban renewal' - so think about the constituents who are at RISK..
Should we just maintain the 100% approval or consent - before anyone loses his homes for any 'urban renewal project"?
And, with regard to cleanliness, maintenance and upkeep of common areas and facilities, including elevators, ...- pass the law that it fall on the Local Council(Local Government) - apartment/flat and condo unit owners only responsible for their own units...Now, the burden is on the residents collectively, and it is NOT RIGHT.
Like Tamans or Housing Estates, with bungalows or terrace units, the responsibility is already on the Local Council/Local Government - so same for flats/apartments/condominiums please as everyone pays 'CUKAI PINTU' to the Local Government every year...
Under current laws outlined in Section 57 of the Strata Titles Act 1985, a strata development can only be sold if 100 percent of unit owners agree.
I am of the view that the current laws, requiring 100% consent of owners, should be maintained - Those who are holding out and not giving their CONSENT can always still be 'convinced' by maybe better offers...
Maybe, there is also a need to differentiate owner-occupiers, and owners that do not actually live in these affected units (who may let it out to some tenants), and their current HOME is elsewhere...For them, the property may be just an 'investment' not really a family home where owner actually lives in the same home.
Consideration may also be given to the fact whether this is the ONE and ONLY home of the owner, or merely one or many housing units he/she owns.
One must also appreciate, that this is not simply about getting people to move from HOMES - but is also about moving out from the community they are in - where relationships would have been developed and maintained for a very long time. The schools the children attend, the religious community at the suraus/temples, etc , the shops they frequent... it is much much more that just living a housing unit...
Many may not be personally affected in the near future(but may be in the future) - but this proposed Urban Renewal Bill has serious consequences ... DO YOU WANT TO BE FORCED OUT OF YOUR HOME, WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN STAYING FOR YEARS, OR WHICH YOU FINALLY MANAGED TO PAY OFF YOUR BANK LOANS? WORSE, Not FREELY but because a certain percentage of other home owners agreed to the Urban Renewal???
These are people who are LEGALLY staying in their homes - so, they have RIGHT to do so,,,and they should never be 'EVICTED' without their consent for any reason..
Put yourself in the shoes of one of the 20% who will be forced to abandon and leave their home...DO YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT AND JUST?
See earlier post
Urban Renewal - To rid UGLY Buildings or People? Local Government should be responsible for common areas/facilities in flats/apartments/condos? Lifespan of buildings - 30 years?
What Is The Urban Renewal Act And Why Is Everyone Talking About It?
Many have raised concerns regarding minorities and the elderly being pushed out from their homes if the Bill is passed.
Urban renewal is a concept that has existed for hundreds of years, beginning in 19th-century England, although this specific term wasn’t used then.
Malaysia started exploring it in 2015, and in 2020, the government announced a policy to redevelop all public housing over 30 years old.
Why is it being proposed?
There are basically three main reasons why the government is proposing the URA, all of which is aimed at improving safety and to breathe new life into the city.
- Improve safety and basics: Many older flats and apartments suffer from structural issues, bad wiring, or general neglect. Local councils often lack the fund or legal authority to fix them.
- Enable redevelopment: Currently, development can stall if just one owner refuses to sell. The URA seeks to loosen this roadblock and jumpstart necessary urban renewal.
- Boost housing and public facilities: The law aims to deliver better housing, improved infrastructure, and public amenities — making living conditions more comfortable and livable.
While all this sounds good and for the benefit of the people, a few concerns regarding ownership rights, amongst many other worrying issues, were raised should the URA come into effect.
The proposed urban renewal law allows the government to redevelop areas without full consent of owners
When the URA was announced, not everyone was on board with it. The provisions raised concerns about the potential for minority property owners to be compelled to sell their properties even if they disagree with the redevelopment plan.
Certain parties argued that it could result in forced evictions, unfair land acquisitions, and the displacement of poorer citizens who are unable to afford their homes once the area is redeveloped.
Under current laws outlined in Section 57 of the Strata Titles Act 1985, a strata development can only be sold if 100 percent of unit owners agree.
The proposed URA aims to lower this threshold based on the building’s age and condition. If the Bill is passed in Parliament, it is intended to overcome that gridlock.
Here is what the consent thresholds look like:
- 80% consent if the building is under 30 years old.
- 75% consent if the building is over 30 years old.
- 51% consent if the building is damaged or abandoned.
In simple terms, if there is a building over 30 years old, the government would only need 75% of its owners to agree to the URA to begin redeveloping it, regardless of what the remainder of the owners say.
A “one-for-one” replacement is promised, but what about raised property taxes after redevelopment?
However, in a recent article by The Star, Town and Country Planning Department (PLANMalaysia) Director General Datuk Dr Alias Rameli said there will be a “one-for-one” replacement as compensations for acquisitions made under the URA.
“One house will be replaced by another house. If the price was RM70,000 previously, after urban redevelopment it will be valued at RM400,000. There will be no payment required and it is free of charge for residents in agreement,” he said at a press conference in Parliament on 26 August.
But that only covers the cost of the property itself. What about taxes and upkeep in the future?
Well, according to a Malay Mail report, Professor Jamalunlaili Abdullah, dean at Universiti Teknologi MARA’s Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying asked “Yes, people may get larger, better homes. But can they afford the property taxes and upkeep later?”.
“The property tax will increase as this tax is based on the value of the properties in an area. When redevelopment is done, the value of properties in the area will go up,” he added.
Jamalunlaili said the Bill is positive, but it still needed to include some safeguards for property owners, especially those who belong in the low-income tier.
“People need this assurance that they will still be able to afford living in their houses after it has gone through redevelopment and this assurance should be long term — for the next 10 to 20 years,” he said.
The URA has its pros and cons, provided that it is not abused
On one hand, the redevelopment law that is being proposed should improve the quality of life of those who are living in decades-old buildings.
On the other hand, many are worried that the Act could be abused by developer-driven “land grabs”; unfair valuation and compensation; and gentrification and social displacement.
While the intent of the URA is good, the potential loophole here is that the balance of power tilts heavily towards developers and the majority, leaving minorities and vulnerable residents at risk of forced displacement, unfair compensation, and loss of community identity.
Until the URA comes into effect, the benefits or drawbacks remains to be seen. The Rakyat Post, 28/8/2025
Press Release | Malaysian Bar’s Position on the Urban Renewal Bill 2025 27 Aug 2025 5:14 pm
The
Malaysian Bar notes that the Government tabled the Urban Renewal Bill
2025 for its first reading in the Dewan Rakyat (House of
Representatives) on 21 August 2025. The Bill seeks to create a
framework for the redevelopment, regeneration, and revitalisation of
urban areas, with significant implications for homeowners, tenants, and
the public at large.
We recognise the need for a coherent legal framework to address ageing buildings, abandoned developments, and unsafe structures in Malaysia’s cities. Urban renewal is a legitimate and necessary national objective. However, this objective must not come at the expense of fundamental rights, security of tenure, and public confidence in the rule of law.
The Bar is concerned that the consent thresholds proposed in the Bill are set too low. As drafted, the Bill allows renewal projects to proceed with 80 percent consent for buildings aged 30 years or less, 75 percent consent for buildings over 30 years, and 51 percent consent for unsafe or abandoned buildings. Such thresholds risk undermining the rights of minority owners and exposing communities to potential displacement. In other jurisdictions, higher consent levels have been adopted as safeguards. We therefore urge that the thresholds for habitable buildings be raised to at least 85 percent for older buildings and 90 percent for newer ones, with independent verification of consent.
Additionally, with regard to States’ participation in securing the consent threshold, the Malaysian Bar is concerned that the revised text now places the responsibility entirely on the appointed qualified developer, without any direct participation of State authorities. While PLANMalaysia indicated during a recent briefing session that this matter will eventually be addressed in the Rules of the Act, there is no assurance that this would happen, as the power to make Regulations is vested solely in the Minister under section 29 of the Bill.
Furthermore, in relation to compulsory acquisition under section 21(4), once the consent threshold is secured, the remaining landowners who disagree will be subjected to compulsory acquisition. This raises serious concerns regarding fairness and due process. The Bill provides no protection to non-participating landowners. Safeguards and the right to receive an offer of benefit under urban renewal should extend to all landowners, whether participating or otherwise.
The Malaysian Bar also notes that the Bill allows for a declaration of urban renewal without prior engagement by the authorities with landowners. This marks a departure from earlier drafts, which had envisaged a more active role for State authorities in ensuring the consent threshold was met.
In the light of these concerns, we emphasise these key points:
- The State must be involved in confirming the consent threshold;
- The appointed qualified developer cannot be permitted to independently secure the consent threshold;
- It is illogical to allow compulsory acquisition to proceed merely on the basis that the developer has secured the consent threshold;
- The right to receive an offer of benefit must be extended to all landowners, both participating and non-participating; and
- The consent threshold percentage is lower than the threshold in some urban renewal-centric countries.
We are further concerned about the Bill’s reliance on compulsory acquisition mechanisms under the Land Acquisition Act 1960. Any use of compulsory acquisition in the context of urban renewal should be approached with caution, reserved only for genuine public purposes, and accompanied by enhanced compensation formulas that include relocation costs, disturbance allowances, and a right of return.
Tenants and occupiers, though not title owners, must not be overlooked. Adequate statutory protections must be introduced to guarantee temporary rehousing, relocation support, and first right of return to equivalent units. Without these safeguards, urban renewal risks displacing vulnerable communities and widening social inequalities.
Equally critical is the need for transparency and participation. Public hearings, social and traffic impact assessments, and full disclosure of development terms should be made mandatory before any renewal project is approved. The Bar is particularly concerned about recent moves to narrow opportunities for public hearings in Kuala Lumpur, which run counter to the principles of transparency and accountability.
The Malaysian Bar advocates for the establishment of an independent mediation body with clear powers to address disputes and procedural defects, as well as provisions for legal aid to affected owners and occupiers. Renewal must not become a tool for private profit at public expense. In any event, the absence of a tribunal is problematic. Part IV of the Bill merely provides for mediation, which is insufficient to effectively address disputes.
We therefore urge the Government to defer
the second reading of the Bill and to subject it to further consultation
with all stakeholders, including residents’ groups, consumer
associations, and civil societies. Only by ensuring higher safeguards
and stronger protections can urban renewal achieve its intended purpose
of revitalising our cities while respecting the rights and dignity of
all Malaysians.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysian Bar
27 August 2025
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment