G25 Malaysia is deeply concerned by the tabling of the Urban Renewal Bill 2025, which has now been postponed during the second reading in the House of Representatives following strong public backlash.
While the goal of revitalising ageing urban areas is legitimate, the implementation proposed in the current bill is gravely flawed. It risks violating constitutional protections and threatens to entrench inequality in cities.
Violation of constitutional rights
At the heart of the controversy is Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees Malaysian the right to property.
Despite the minister’s recent decision to standardise all consent thresholds at 80% regardless of the age of the buildings, even if up to 20% of owners object, their rights can be overridden.
The proposed bill creates a dangerous precedent where private property can effectively be seized through manufactured consent.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
G25 Malaysia strongly supports the call of civil society groups such as KLRA+SD that the consent threshold must be near-unanimous – at least 95%, for inhabited buildings not in imminent danger.
Without clear protection of home owners’ interests and independent checks and balances in place, lowering the threshold risks violating the Federal Constitution and disregards the interests of minorities.
Excessive ministerial powers, weak oversight
The bill centralises extraordinary powers in the hands of politicians and opaque executive committees, with little independent oversight.
These committees are dominated by government appointees and exclude independent professionals, civil society, and home owners’ and residents’ representatives.
Without independent oversight, open tenders or transparent auditing of consent, the bill risks becoming a vehicle for political patronage and developer-oriented interests.
Abuse of land acquisition powers
The bill empowers “approved developers”, which are determined by the minister, to acquire land compulsorily under the Land Acquisition Act once an area is declared a renewal zone.
This paves the way for land grabs disguised as urban renewal.
Civil society has rightly called for strict limits on the use of compulsory acquisition. It should be confined only to technical reasons such as deceased or untraceable owners. Anything broader opens the door to the dispossession of ordinary people for private gain.
Inadequate compensation and protection
The bill promises “benefits not less favourable” than before, but leaves the details vague and subject to ministerial discretion. This is grossly insufficient.
Fair compensation must go beyond cash payments. It must include one-to-one replacement housing of equivalent size and location, first-right-to-return for displaced residents, coverage of transitional costs such as rental, moving expenses and legal fees, and profit-sharing mechanisms reflecting the future development value.
Without these guarantees in the body of the law, the promise of “fair compensation” is nothing more than rhetoric.
Exclusion of tenants and vulnerable communities
The bill only recognises proprietors as stakeholders. It ignores tenants, sub-tenants and informal occupants, who form the backbone of urban communities.
These are the groups most vulnerable to displacement. Yet the law denies them a voice.
Urban renewal should be about improving lives, not uprooting them. Tenants must be given legal standing in consultation, and guaranteed rehousing or rent-to-own options in redeveloped projects. Ignoring them will deepen urban poverty and fuel gentrification.
Social and political risks
The bill risks fuelling gentrification and racial polarisation by systematically displacing lower-income and minority home owners to the urban periphery.
It also erodes public trust in institutions by sidelining meaningful consultation. It has fuelled calls for local government elections, which the federal government has long resisted.
Urban renewal, if badly executed, becomes urban uprooting that enriches developers while tearing apart communities.
Malaysia, as the host of the UN-Habitat Assembly (2025–29), which the minister himself has been very proud of, should be leading by example in sustainable, community-centred renewal. It should not be passing a law that incentivises demolition for developers’ profit.
Our call
G25 Malaysia urges the “Madani” (civil and compassionate) government to withdraw the current bill in its entirety and return to the drawing board.
Specifically, we call for the following measures:
- Restore constitutional safeguards
- Raise the consent thresholds to at least 95%
- Remove “deemed consent” and other procedural traps for vulnerable groups.
- Guarantee fair compensation and rehousing
- Enshrine one-to-one replacement, first-right-to-return, transitional cost coverage and profit-sharing in law.
- Recognise all stakeholders
- Provide tenants and subtenants legal standing and protection.
- Strengthen PPR (People’s Housing Programme) and rent-to-own schemes.
- Establish independent oversight
- Create a statutory urban renewal tribunal and an independent housing development board or oversight commission.
- Mandate open tendering and publish a federal register of qualified developers.
- Prioritise sustainability
- Codify social and environmental impact assessments for all projects.
- Make adaptive reuse and embodied carbon reduction the first priority before demolition.
- Embed genuine public participation
- Reopen the bill for public consultation.
- Ensure representation of NGOs, professional bodies, home owners and residents in governance structures.
Malaysia urgently needs a framework to manage urban renewal.
But the current bill, in its rushed and flawed form, is not the answer. It violates constitutional rights, tilts power towards developers, weakens oversight and risks tearing communities apart.
Urban renewal must not be reduced to a profit-making exercise benefiting the minister’s ‘approved developers’.
It must be about preserving dignity, protecting rights and building sustainable cities where everyone, whether home owners, tenants, young and old, can thrive together.
G25 Malaysia stands with civil society in calling for a complete rethink of the Urban Renewal Bill.
The Madani government must pause, listen, reflect and legislate with the people, not against them. – G25
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
Also looking after the environment and the neighbourhood, developers would want more highrise (more profits) rather than keeping old neighbourhood w trees etc
Would we want all highrise buildings and lose our identity or the familiar neighbourhood?
If land (and property) can be taken away after only 30 years (or X years) under this URA what’s the difference between a piece of freehold land and that of leasehold? The land can be taken away after 30 years anyway if it is declared a renewal zone? Just curious.