Revitalisation must be for all

The Star

24-05-2025

MALAYSIA'S proposed Urban Renewal Act has been introduced with a familiar promise: to revitalise ageing cities, improve infrastructure, and 'modernise' neighbourhoods that are said to be falling into decline.
On the surface, it sounds like a well-meaning effort to address real urban challenges. But beneath the language of progress lies a deeper concern – that this Act, if passed without serious safeguards, could become a tool for displacing low-income and marginalised communities in the name of development.
This concern isn't theoretical. In Malaysia, urban development has long prioritised capital over community. As a friend once put it plainly, that Malaysia is neither a developing nor a developed country – it is a 'developer country.'
Residents, especially those who rent, hold no formal title, or live in informal settlements, are consistently sidelined. They are rarely consulted in any real sense, and often find themselves displaced with little notice, little recourse, and little or no compensation.
Even when compensation is offered, no matter how generous they may seem on paper, is not a substitute for stability, security, or belonging. In practice, com-pensation rarely translates into improved livelihoods.
More often, it severs people from the very networks – jobs, schools, extended family, community support – that made their lives viable in the first place. The money runs out. The rent goes up. The cost of commuting rises. And what's left is not a better life but a more precarious one.
Moreover, the promise of returning to improved housing post-redevelopment is fraught with challenges. While new units may be 'better', they often come with increased property taxes and maintenance costs. As property values rise due to redevelopment, so do the asso-ciated costs of living in these areas. For low-income residents, this financial burden can be unsustainable, effectively forcing them to sell their homes and relocate, despite initial assuran-ces of the right to return.
The Urban Renewal Act, as it's currently being discussed, risks reinforcing this pattern. By centralising the power to initiate and approve renewal projects, and by opening the door for the Land Acquisition Act to be used more broadly for redevelopment, the government could make it easier to displace entire com-munities under the banner of 'revitalisation'.
This is especially troubling given the way redevelopment is typically framed in Malaysia. Older buildings are labelled 'obsolete' or 'unproductive'. Working-class neighbourhoods are described as 'underutilised'. In these narratives, the existing residents are rarely seen as stakeholders with rights. More often, they're treated as obstacles to be removed or relocated to make way for something newer, shinier, and more profitable.
But who actually benefits from this kind of renewal? When we strip away the language of 'modernisation' and 'revitalisa­tion', what remains is a pattern of transformation that often prioritises land value over community wellbeing.
If the goal is truly to make our cities more liveable and equitable, then we need to reconsider the values driving redevelopment. What is being renewed, and for whom?
At the heart of this question is the issue of housing. Urban renewal cannot be reduced to infrastructure upgrades or the repackaging of neighbourhoods for higher returns. It must begin with the recognition that housing is not merely a commodity to be traded or optimised – it is a basic human right. And that right includes more than a roof overhead; it includes the ability to live with dignity, stability, and security in one's own community.
The right to housing, as out-lined in international human rights frameworks, includes more than access to a physical unit. It includes legal security of tenure, affordability, habitability, acces-sibility, cultural adequacy, and proximity to work, schools, and healthcare. A policy that does not safeguard these basic elements is not renewal, it's displacement dressed up as progress.
To avoid repeating past mistakes, several key safeguards must be built into the Urban Renewal Act.
First, residents must be guaranteed the right to remain in or return to their neighbourhoods after redevelopment. This includes legally binding commitments to in-situ upgrades or the construction of affordable replacement housing in the same location, not vague promises or 'temporary' relocation plans that leave families in limbo for years.
Second, if we are to treat housing as a fundamental right, then that right must extend beyond formal homeownership to include the many other ways people live and hold land. In Malaysia, entire communities have made homes on land without titles, not out of neglect, but because the legal system has long lagged behind the lived realities of urban growth, migra­tion, and informal settlement.
Recognising housing as a right means recognising the legitimacy of diverse forms of tenure – rented flats, ancestral lands for Orang Asli, long-term squatter communities. It means creating legal protections for these residents, and supporting alternative ownership models such as cooperative housing or community land trusts that allow for long-term stability, afford-ability, and collective stewardship.
Third, residents must have a real say in how renewal happens. Too often, 'consultations' are performative, held after decisions have already been made. True democratic governance means giving residents decision-making power, not just a seat at the table, but a vote that counts. This could be done through local planning councils, participatory budgeting, or other mechanisms that give communities control over their own futures.
Finally, the Act must include strong measures to counter property speculation. Without this, redevelopment will simply drive up land prices, attract speculative investors, and push long-term residents out. Anti-speculation taxes, limits on flipping, and caps on developer profits can help ensure that renewal serves public, not just private, interests.
Cities do need to evolve. Infrastructure does need to be maintained. But change must be equitable. It must be rooted in justice. If we allow the same dynamics that have shaped Malaysia's urban landscape for decades to continue unchecked, this new Act will not renew our cities, but instead it will remake them in a way that further concentrates wealth and deepens inequality.
Malaysia has a chance to get this right by putting people before profit and making urban renewal a tool for inclusion, not displacement. But without real political will, we risk repeating the same story: development that benefits the few while pushing out the many.
Badrul Hisham Ismail is the director of programmes at Iman Research and a member of the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The views expressed here are solely the writer's own.