Beyond the bulldozer: Reimagining urban renewal as a partnership, not a takeover

THE letter by Prof Datuk Dr Alias Abdullah and Asst Prof Dr Roziha Che Haron in The Star dated March 2, 2026, thoughtfully frames urban redevelopment as a socioeconomic process, one that must balance physical renewal with social stability. They correctly warn that if redevelopment produces "taller buildings but weaker communities, its success will be superficial".

With the tabling of the proposed Urban Renewal Act (URA) 2025, issues related to development have moved from academic discussions to an urgent national debate about the very nature of property rights in Malaysia. While the letter focused on the burdens borne by residents, I want to raise an even more fundamental concern: Who truly owns the decision to renew?

The professors’ letter correctly notes that redevelopment must be treated as a governance responsibility, not merely a commercial exercise. The proposed URA fundamentally restructures this governance by introducing what critics call a "majoritarian approach" unprecedented in Malaysian land law.

Under the proposed framework, redevelopment can proceed with as little as 75% to 80% consent from owners, after which the remaining minority can be compelled to vacate through the Land Acquisition Act 1960. For the first time, private homeowners could see their constitutionally-protected property rights effectively terminated not by a government's public purpose declaration, but by a commercial decision made by their neighbours.

This raises a constitutional question that deserves greater attention: Does a 75% vote to redevelop satisfy the "adequate compensation" guarantee under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution? The Federal Court has consistently held that this safeguard requires a protective rather than restrictive interpretation. Yet the URA's consent mechanism, as currently structured, may be facilitating the commercial interests of developers at the expense of private homeowners.

One of the most contentious aspects of the current proposal is the 30-year trigger point for redevelopment eligibility. Critics rightly ask: Why 30 years when the average lifespan of reinforced concrete structures is 70 to 80 years, and standard housing loans last 35 years?

This arbitrary benchmark suggests that redevelopment is being framed around development cycles rather than structural necessity. As one property expert noted, it is often the maintenance culture – not the building itself – that needs renewal. That letter’s emphasis on community continuity becomes even more poignant when neighbourhoods face potential dissolution not because they are unsafe, but because they have reached a commercially convenient age.

The professors’ letter addresses financial burdens on homeowners but does not consider an entire category of urban dwellers who will be profoundly affected by large-scale renewal: tenants.

As highlighted by civic groups, the current URA framework completely overlooks rental households. In major cities, many low-income families and young workers are tenants. Once urban renewal commences, this group becomes entirely invisible in the compensation framework – receiving nothing and potentially rendered homeless. Any renewal agenda claiming to be "people-centric" must address this glaring omission by drawing inspiration from international models that provide alternative units or rental subsidies for displaced tenants.

The letter concludes that redevelopment must be measured by collective well-being. To achieve this, I believe the government should consider the following:

> Enshrine "Like-for-Like" replacement rights – For landed homeowners, the prospect of being forced into a high-rise condominium as "compensation" represents a fundamental alteration of their lifestyle and investment. The government should guarantee that where owners voluntarily participate, they receive a similar property type – landed for landed. This preserves not just asset value but a way of life.

> Mandate independent future-value valuation – Current compensation based on market value ignores the future potential of redeveloped sites. Compensation must reflect the development's net cost and the land's post-renewal value, not just current rates . This requires independent valuation mechanisms insulated from developer influence.

> Require comprehensive impact assessments – The Malaysian Institute of Planners has rightly called for mandatory social impact assessments and cultural heritage impact assessments alongside the customary environmental impact assessments for all designated renewal areas. These must be conducted before any area is approved for redevelopment, ensuring decisions are data-driven rather than profit-driven.

> Ensure legal clarity – Urban renewal zones should be formally incorporated into Local Plans or Special Area Plans under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976. This provides legal clarity, enhances transparency, and ensures alignment with broader urban development strategies rather than ad-hoc project approvals.

> Establish an independent urban redevelopment authority – The government should consider creating a dedicated body – an urban redevelopment authority – with the mandate to protect resident interests, oversee transparent bidding processes, and ensure redevelopment meets broader public needs like transport, schools, and healthcare access. This removes the conflict of interest inherent when government agencies both promote and regulate development.

For developers and planners navigating this complex landscape, the professors’ warning in their letter about superficial success should guide every decision.

First, embrace the owner-led model. Developers should not drive the renewal process. Instead, they should be brought in to support owners' redevelopment initiatives after residents have organised, understood their land's planning potential, and established their vision. This "bottom-up urbanism" transforms developers from masters to partners.

Second, prioritise phased redevelopment. The anxiety of displacement can be mitigated by adopting approaches where new blocks are completed first, allowing original owners to relocate before any demolition occurs. This maintains community continuity and demonstrates good faith.

Third, build trust through transparency. The Kampung Sungai Baru tragedy in Kuala Lumpur – when residents faced eviction with doors torn down, leaving these Malaysian families feeling like "refugees" – occurred because trust had completely broken down. Developers must engage in structured dialogue and provide professional advice to communities about their land's potential value before negotiations begin, and ensure compensation negotiations are conducted in open, transparent settings.

The professors ask whether redevelopment genuinely improves lives or imposes hidden burdens. As Malaysia stands on the cusp of enacting the URA this question has never been more urgent.

True urban advancement cannot be measured by the height of towers or the density of transit corridors. It must be measured by whether the grandmother who has lived in her home since childhood can age with dignity in a community she recognises. It must be measured by whether the 25% minority who voted against redevelopment are protected, not punished. And it must be measured by whether the tenant family, invisible in current legislation, is provided a home rather than a notice to vacate.

The URA represents a paradigm shift in Malaysian property law. It can either become a tool for inclusive, people-centred urban transformation, or it can facilitate the forced surrender of Malaysians' most valuable assets. The difference lies in whether we listen to voices like Prof Alias and Asst Prof Roziha’s.

PHILLIP M. RAJOO

Seremban