We, the undersigned, would like to express our concern regarding the proposed Urban Renewal Bill 2025 (URA Bill) – especially on the consent threshold for urban renewal projects, particularly Section 19 (1)(b) which states that where an urban renewal project is carried out by the federal executive committee or the state executive committee:
- for a building which is thirty years or less, the consent threshold shall be 80%
- for a building which is more than thirty years, the consent threshold shall be 75%
In Hong Kong and Singapore, where land is more scarce than Malaysia, the consent threshold required from property owners is set at a higher level than what is being proposed for Malaysia.
In Hong Kong, under their Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, buildings aged 50 years and below will require a consent threshold of 90%.
While in Singapore, the threshold is 80% for buildings aged 10 years or above. None of these countries is proposing a 75% threshold.
| Country | Threshold |
| Malaysia | Less than 30 years: 80%More than 30 years: 75% |
| Hong Kong | Less than 50 years: 90%More than 50 years: 70% |
| Singapore | More than 10 years: 80%Less than 10 years: 90% |
With Malaysia having significantly more available land than Hong Kong and Singapore, we should not be rushing to lower this threshold.
- 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 fact, we strongly believe that the appropriate consent threshold should be set higher at 85% for buildings older than 30 years, and 90% for buildings below 30 years, in order to safeguard the rights of home owners and particularly tenants in social housing.
We should not be supporting this 75% consent threshold.
We have no objections to the redevelopment of truly abandoned or unsafe buildings with a consent threshold of 51%.
However, urban redevelopment involving low-cost social housing must be approached with greater caution.
While we support, in principle, the redevelopment of ageing low-cost social houses, we note with great concern, the social housing policy that this “Madani” (civil and compassionate) government inherited is deeply flawed. This URA Bill does little to improve it.
Current owners of low-cost houses tend to be middle income and not rich people, not the underprivileged. For instance, in Subang, a survey conducted by the Subang office found that almost 73% of occupants in low-cost units are tenants, not owners. A big majority of owners are from the middle class and upper-income group.
With this URA Bill, the majority of owners who own but do not live in these units will most definitely give their consent to redevelop.
This scenario illustrates two fundamental issues.
First, social housing is primarily not owned by the underprivileged and thus their interests are not protected or improved by this URA Bill.
Second, the gentrification exercise under this proposed URA Bill is likely to displace urban underprivileged tenants from city centres.
For the reasons given, we urge the government to:
- Further engage with the two relevant parliamentary special select committees – the Committee on Infrastructure, Transportation and Communications and the Committee on Women, Children and Community Development. In addition, the ministry must commission a full social impact study of the URA Bill for the redevelopment of social housing in city centres and report the same to Parliament.
- Ensure full one-to-one replacement of low-cost units in any of the redevelopment plans. These newer and better low-cost units should then be sold to the underprivileged people who genuinely require low-cost housing. If these policies are incorporated in this URA Bill, the URA Bill will contribute positively towards addressing the systemic social housing problems.
- We urge the government not to push for a second reading on Wednesday but to revisit this bill in the next sitting in October after a better briefing to MPs, addressing the core issue of threshold and the impact on urban underprivileged tenants.
If the government proceeds with this URA Bill as it stands, it risks alienating urban voters, particularly in constituencies where social housing is concentrated. This would be a grave political mistake.
We support, in principle, the URA Bill provided the threshold is fairer and social housing problems are addressed as per our recommendations.
- Wong Chen, Subang MP
- Rodziah Ismail, Ampang MP
- Zahir Hassan, Wangsa Maju MP
- Syed Ibrahim, Ledang MP
- Tan Kar Hing, Gopeng MP
- Dato’ Muhammad Bakhtiar Wan Chik, Balik Pulau MP
- Lee Chean Chung, Petaling Jaya MP
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
