By N Surendran
I refer to the Urban Renewal Bill tabled in Parliament for first reading [on 21 August].
This bill poses the biggest danger to the constitutional right to ownership of property since independence in 1957. The bill conflicts with fundamental provisions of the Constitution. It is blatantly and irredeemably unconstitutional.
First, under clause 21 of the bill, the federal minister or state authority can declare any building or housing as an “urban renewal area”. Once that is done, people’s houses or condominiums or any building in the designated area is subject to compulsory seizure under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of “urban renewal”.
In other words, once your house has been declared to be in an urban renewal area, the authorities can eventually take your house irrespective of your consent. The developer only needs 75–80% of owners to consent to enable the balance to be seized.
- 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
In short, once your property has been earmarked, there is no escaping the juggernaut of the urban renewal act, which will end with the forced acquisition of your property if you do not consent. Anyone’s property can be targeted on the the grounds that it is dilapidated or needs ‘regeneration’ or ‘redevelopment’. These are vague and broad defined terms, allowing overly wide ambit and powers to state authorities and developers.
Under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, the right to ownership of property is guaranteed. This is one of the most important and basic right of people in a democratic country.
But by virtue of the wide power under clause 21 to declare any area an urban renewal area, as explained above, that sacrosanct right in Article 13 is rendered illusory.
How can the right not be illusory if the state authority is given the ultimate power to seize any property in the name of urban renewal and based on its subjective judgment of whether it is dilapidated or in need of repair? It is an unconstrained and unbridled power.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Constitution and decisions of the federal courts, any law which renders ‘illusory’ a constitutional right such as Article 13, is void, unconstitutional and of no effect.
Therefore, the bill as it stands now is an unconstitutional bill, which must be withdrawn. Parliament must not knowingly pass an unconstitutional bill.
Second, any law which uses disproportionate or excessive means to achieve its objectives is unconstitutional pursuant to Article 8 as well as a long series of landmark federal court decisions. The objective of the bill is ‘town planning’. To give the state power to compulsorily seize the homes of owners who do not consent, for the sake of ‘town planning’ is completely unacceptable.
Potentially, a quarter of all residents in a condominium building could have their homes seized without their consent. This is excessive and disproportionate, and hence in breach of the prohibition against ‘disproportionate means’ implicit in Article 8, which renders the bill unconstitutional.
And any right-thinking person will agree it is also wrong by any standard as it puts property rights in grave jeopardy.
Third, by virtue of clause 21(4), the dreaded Land Acquisition Act 1960 is triggered once 75–80% owners have ‘consented’. This ‘consent’ is itself problematic because those consenting do so in the shadow of the possible use of compulsory acquisition if they don’t consent.
The process is not fair or done freely without pressure or threat of coercive power.
The processes by which developers obtain this consent has also been mired in controversy in many cases involving compulsory acquisition, with residents complaining of undue pressure and threats.
The much-hated Land Acquisition Act itself has a long history of causing injustice and unfair deprivation of homes and property. This can be seen in the endless controversy and stalemate over the redevelopment at Kampung Sungai Baru in Kuala Lumpur.
We urge the “Madani” (trustworthy and compassionate) government to withdraw the bill entirely. It is the only right thing to do. The bill, which is unconstitutional, must not proceed to second reading as scheduled on the 27 August.
It is against the interest of everyone for this bill to be passed as it will result in an unprecedented erosion of property rights in Malaysia.
Urban renewal projects are necessary and must be carried out, but not by unconstitutional means. – LFL
N Surendran is the advisor of Lawyers for Liberty.
22 August 2025
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
