Kuala Lumpur often speaks the language of global cities, aspiring to be competitive, inclusive and liveable.
We brand ourselves a “City for All”, yet when it comes to how the capital is governed, it remains a glaring outlier: residents have no vote in local government and no say in who runs their city.
There are no local government elections here.
The mayor is appointed, not elected.
This stands in stark contrast to cities we frequently compare ourselves with – London, Seoul, Bangkok, Taipei and New York – where residents directly elect their mayors and hold them accountable at the ballot box.
This contradiction raises a fundamental question: how can Kuala Lumpur truly be a “City for All” when residents are excluded from deciding how it is governed?
Under the Federal Capital Act 1960, the Commissioner of the City of Kuala Lumpur – commonly known as the Datuk Bandar – is appointed by the Federal Government.
Executive authority is concentrated in this office, while accountability flows upward to the Federal Territories minister and, ultimately, the Prime Minister, rather than downward to the people.
This line of accountability shapes decision-making.
When a mayor’s position depends on political appointment, incentives naturally align with satisfying the appointing authority rather than responding to public concerns.
Residents may be consulted, but consultation is not consent, and feedback is not accountability.
This gap has been illustrated in several high-profile planning decisions, including the degazettement of flood retention ponds such as Kampung Bohol and Wahyu to make way for development, despite sustained objections from affected communities.
In most global cities, mayoral authority is balanced by an elected city council and legitimised by a popular mandate.
In Kuala Lumpur, residents bear the consequences of flooding, traffic congestion, housing affordability and public space without possessing the most basic democratic lever to influence leadership.
This arrangement also falls short of Malaysia’s commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), particularly SDG 11 on sustainable cities and SDG 16 on accountable institutions.
Claims that an elected mayor would be beyond reprimand are misleading.
In January 2025, Istanbul’s Beşiktaş mayor Rıza Akpolat was detained in a corruption probe.
The lesson is straightforward: elections do not place leaders above the law – they place them under greater scrutiny.
Reforming city governance does not have to be an all-or-nothing exercise.
If the federal administration believes the country is not yet ready to fully restore local government elections, introducing mayoral elections in Kuala Lumpur is a reasonable and measured first step.
As the capital, Kuala Lumpur should lead – not lag – in governance reform.
With a population of 1,982,112, Kuala Lumpur is home to a diverse urban electorate.
According to the MyCensus 2020, 47.7% of residents are Bumiputera, 41.6% Chinese, 10% Indian and 0.7% others.
These figures directly contradict claims that local elections would place the city under the control of a particular ethnic group.
Calls for mayoral elections are sometimes framed as race-based or destabilising, but this narrative does a disservice to the public.
What city dwellers want is not racial dominance, but better governance and genuine transparency.
Some political leaders have also suggested that Kuala Lumpur’s entertainment districts and the presence of organised crime would make elections vulnerable to manipulation by cartels.
Such arguments underestimate the intellect and civic judgement of voters.
To suggest that urban residents cannot distinguish between credible leadership and criminal influence reflects a troubling lack of trust in public participation.
At the heart of the reform debate lies the question of eligibility.
The most defensible answer is simple – residents.
Those who live in the city, raise families and use public services should have a say in choosing their mayor.
This principle is widely accepted internationally.
In Seoul, non-citizen residents with long-term residency can vote in local elections.
In the UK, Commonwealth citizens can vote in local polls.
When I studied there, I voted in borough council elections as a resident – a recognition that local democracy is rooted in lived reality, not property ownership.
Arguments that voting should be restricted to ratepayers overlook how cities actually function.
Residents who do not own property still contribute – through rent, consumption and economic activity.
Cities exist primarily to serve people, not land titles.
Kuala Lumpur’s ambition to stand among global cities cannot rest on branding alone.
It must be matched by structures that recognise residents as active citizens.
Electing the mayor would not solve every urban problem overnight.
But it would realign incentives and affirm a basic democratic principle: those who live in the city should have a meaningful role in shaping its future.
Joshua Low
Honorary Secretary
Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association (KLRA+SD)
