Urban Renewal Bill breaches constitutional rights of ownership - LFL

The Urban Renewal Bill 2025 was deemed to be unconstitutional and should be void as it breaches the people’s rights to own property, as accorded under Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, says Lawyers for Liberty.

LFL’s adviser N Surendran said the bill, tabled for the first reading in Parliament yesterday, poses the biggest dangers to one’s constitutional right and that the Parliament should not knowingly pass an unconstitutional bill.

“Clause 21 of the bill stated that a federal minister or state authority can declare any building or housing as an ‘urban renewal area’.

“Once that is done, people’s houses, condominiums or any building in the designated area are subject to compulsory seizure under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of ‘urban renewal’.

“(Which meant that) once your house has been declared to be in the urban renewal area, the authorities can eventually take your house, irrespective of your consent (as) the developer only needs 75 to 80 percent of the owner’s consent to enable the balance to be seized,” Surendran (above) said in a statement today.

Anyone’s property can be targeted, he said, on grounds that it’s dilapidated or needs “regeneration” or “redevelopment”.

These are vague terms, he said, that may allow overly wide ambit and powers to state authorities and developers, unlike Article 13 of the Constitution, which guaranteed one’s right to ownership.

Should the bill be passed, Clause 21 would render rights under Article 13 as illusory, trumping its Constitutional power, as the bill would ultimately empower state authority to seize any property in the name of “repair”, he added.

He further said that the bill holds unconstrained and unbridled power.

Disproportionate means

As the objective behind the bill is for the sake of “town planning”, said Surendran, it would empower the state to compulsorily seize the homes of owners who do not consent.

Such a seizure under the guise of “town planning” is completely unacceptable, he added.

“Potentially, a quarter of all residents in a condominium building could have their homes seized without their consent (which is) excessive and disproportionate.

“(This would be) in breach of the prohibition against ‘disproportionate means’ implicit in Article 8, which renders the bill unconstitutional.

“Any right-thinking Malaysians will agree it is also wrong by any standard as it puts property rights in grave jeopardy,” said Surendran.

The Urban Renewal Bill was tabled in Parliament for the first reading yesterday, despite many pushbacks, including from several government backbenchers and opposition MPs, calling for its reading to be stalled.

The bipartisan group, in calling for the Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming to postpone the tabling, was concerned over the consent threshold in the bill, calling it unacceptable and that the bill should not be rushed.

Bipartisan pushback fails to stall Urban Renewal Bill

PSSC chair surprised private letter on URA was read in Dewan Rakyat

Urban Renewal Bill to be tabled for first reading Thursday - Nga

PKR MPs want Urban Renewal Bill debate postponed, PN lauds move

Urban Renewal Bill consent threshold among world's highest - ministry