Latest news with #Act267
The Star
4 days ago
- Business
- The Star
Rezoning row raises questions on stewardship
THE more than two-decades saga of Vivekananda Ashram in Brickfields offers a timely opportunity to reflect on the principle of stewardship. Its key application in governance is that stewards are entrusted to discharge responsibilities in an accountable and transparent manner. Officials exercise power on behalf of an entity; they are custodians of its resources and not owners. This trust must extend to all stakeholders – not just shareholders or members – but also to the broader community with a legitimate interest. According to a report in StarMetro on May 26, 2025, Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) said the landowners of the 120-year-old Vivekananda Ashram had requested its site be zoned as 'main commercial'. With the Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2040 (KLLP 2040) now gazetted and due to come into force on June 11, the key players involved in the ashram's rezoning must reflect on the cardinal principle of stewardship. The Vivekananda Ashrama Kuala Lumpur was incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee in 1934. Its core mission is described as 'involved in educational, spiritual, cultural and welfare activities'. There had been public appeals to rezone the site for educational and welfare use – appeals entirely in line with the organisation's stated purpose. The board of trustees' 2014 plan to build a 23-storey tower over the heritage site triggered public backlash and led to the building's heritage gazettement in 2016. The fact that this gazettement was challenged by the trustees and that they have now accepted 'main commercial' zoning speaks volumes. Even so, the ashram remains a cherished institution with deep intergenerational significance to the wider community. The 876 objections submitted from across the country and abroad, as well as the high participation in the public hearing, reflect this. DBKL's decision to rezone the 0.4ha heritage site is surprising. The agency had access to detailed presentations during the public hearing and subsequent submissions from the Save Vivekananda Ashram Brickfields community. Yet, it appears to have treated the board as just another landowner, without weighing the broader implications of its stewardship responsibilities. Was the entire community engagement process merely a performative exercise? It would be a welcome surprise if DBKL reconsidered its decision and rezoned the site as 'public facilities' before June 11. Is that too much to ask of those who govern a 'City for All'? The community must continue playing its stewardship role. Section 17 of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 [Act 267] provides a mechanism to alter the gazetted KLLP 2040. This avenue remains open for the board to submit an application to rezone the site as 'Public Facilities'. Meanwhile, the community must remain vigilant. Any proposed commercial development should be monitored to ensure full compliance with National Heritage Department guidelines and that all necessary approvals are obtained. At a minimum, the trustees should share their plans and adopt a more inclusive stewardship model. No matter how dwarfed the ashram may become by future soulless structures, its legacy as a monument to the contributions of Malaysia's pioneer generation will endure. Jayanath Appudurai Kuala Lumpur
The Star
30-05-2025
- Politics
- The Star
KL residents say local plan ignores their concerns
THE soon-to-be gazetted Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2040 (KLLP2040) continues to draw criticism from stakeholders who say it does not address their concerns. KLLP2040 will come into force on June 11, according to the Federal Government Gazette dated May 28 published by the Attorney General's Chambers. It contains written statements detailing objectives and proposals for developments, land use, socioeconomic planning and traffic management in the capital. Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association chairman Tan Booi Charn said the group was concerned about land previously meant for community use turning into development zones. Tan: Land designated for community use has been turned into development zones. She pointed to Lot 481440 in Taman Danau Desa, previously reserved for a playground. 'The community submitted 1,000 objections to Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) but their pleas fell on deaf ears. 'Following enquiries, they were informed that the land title had changed and the plan must be adjusted accordingly,' she said. She added that some city lots had their plot ratios increased to accommodate potential future redevelopments. Another point of contention was flood retention ponds in Taman Desa, Taman Wahyu and Kampung Bohol turned into development land, said Tan. She said this contravened principles outlined in Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2040 that retention ponds should remain untouched. Tan estimated that only 13% of public objections were taken into account in the final draft of KLLP2040. 'We are disappointed because the public spent lots of time and effort preparing presentations and submitting objections.' Save Kuala Lumpur chairman Datuk M. Ali called for another round of engagements for DBKL to explain why feedback was not heeded. 'There have been severe shortfalls in the overall process of KLLP2040, which warrants rectifications,' he said. Ali said KLLP2040 failed to provide adequate safeguards for the capital's 52 water retention ponds. 'This is despite a directive from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for the ponds to be restored to their original status,' he said. Naidu: KLLP2040 seems to side with developers and landowners rather than communities. Brickfields Rukun Tetangga chairman SKK Naidu said many suggestions raised during engagements with DBKL were not implemented, especially with regard to green areas and development density. 'The final KLLP2040 seems to side with developers and landowners rather than communities,' he noted. KLLP2040 was adopted in accordance with Sections 16 and 17 of Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 (Act 267). Copies can be downloaded from DBKL's website, or inspected or purchased during office hours at DBKL Urban Planning Department at Menara DBKL 1 from June 11. For details, visit
The Star
29-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
KL local plan to be gazetted June 11
Open-day sessions were held for the draft KLLP 2040 earlier in May. — Filepic Kuala Lumpur Local Plan 2040 (KLLP 2040) will be gazetted on June 11, despite unhappiness expressed by some stakeholders. The Federal Government Gazette on the adoption of the draft local plan with modifications for the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur was published on May 28 by the Attorney General's Chambers. It stated that the revised draft KLLP 2040 was received by the mayor on May 5 and would come into operation on June 11. KLLP 2040 contains written statements detailing objectives and proposals for developments, land use, socioeconomic planning and traffic management in the capital. When contacted by StarMetro, lawyer Deva Kunjari Sambanthan said KLLP 2040 had failed to safeguard against future commercial developments around the Vivekananda Ashram in Brickfields. 'Despite significant public objections, the ashram has continued to be categorised as 'main commercial'. 'This issue has been made known to regulators and the government repeatedly for more than 20 years,' she said. Deva Kunjari said the ashram should be categorised as 'public facilities' in recognition of its heritage value as it is a Category 1 Heritage Building under National Heritage Act 2005. Bangsar resident Ratnasothy Kandiah expressed concerns about new strata developments sprouting around Jalan Abdullah. 'A 62-storey building is currently under construction behind my two-storey house,' she added. Fellow resident Mooi Lau Chan said many homeowners in Kuala Lumpur were affected by noise pollution and loss of privacy. KLLP 2040 was adopted in accordance with sections 16 and 17 of Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 (Act 267). Copies can be downloaded from Kuala Lumpur City Hall's (DBKL) website, and inspected or purchased during office hours at DBKL Urban Planning Department at Menara DBKL 1 from June 11. DBKL held open-day sessions for the revised draft KLLP 2040 from May 7 to 9. For details, visit
The Star
15-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
Consider facts of Urban Renewal Act
1Razak Mansion is repeatedly cited as an urban renewal success story (despite ongoing issues such as maintenance deficit) and is, perhaps deservedly, the poster child for this formative stage of legislation and policy making. It is true that old Razak Mansion dwellers were successfully re-housed without the help of any Urban Renewal Act. Similar 'in-situ resettlements' for facilitating urban renewal could potentially be likewise achieved. The Housing and Local Government Ministry's (KPKT) guideline on urban renewal implementation, which drew from the learnings of Razak Mansion and was launched in September 2023, did not contemplate the existence of any Urban Renewal Act (URA). It was detailed enough in its process flows that we can see how it could work without a URA. This is no reason to outright reject the potential merits of having URA – potential that could only be achieved through a much more inclusive and rights-based consultation of the Draft Bill's provisions than what we are seeing now. Specifically for Kuala Lumpur, which has a different town planning Act (Act 267 instead of 172), a form of 'URA' already seems to be embedded therein, at a level of detail not contemplated by the rest-of-country's Act 172. Most notable among that detail is the Action Area provision, the declaration of which affords a window of opportunity for owners to exercise their right to self-initiate redevelopment, before a state actor authority can take over. The passage of Act 267 (Federal Territory Planning Act) warrants a tribute to the wisdom of Parliamentarians of the era. The proliferation of strata properties since then also means that in the majority of cases, (self-)Action Area is unlikely to materialise with the owners having to gather 100% consent. Therefore, for KL, as with the rest of the country, the best prospects for a way forward lie in all-stakeholder consultation with open and equal access to statistics and sectoral expertise, founded upon a clear acknowledgement of the need to balance economic priorities and the right to do business, versus the rights of citizens. The URA's Draft Bill proclaims itself as a 'town-planning law' while describing its 80% (or 75%) prescriptions as 'consent thresholds'. This is totally different from consent thresholds in foreign countries, which are in land/property law. For example, Singapore's is in its Strata Titles Act, which we have here too, as Act 318. From the information available, there is no intention to amend Act 318's 100% consent requirement for terminating a strata scheme. So our URA seems to be really about adding some kind of structure to the 'Razak Mansion' way of doing it, and in the process, augment the bureaucratic structures (or to create them where they did not exist before) – and set these up as chains of authority that would eventually be applied towards dealing with the minority non-consenters upon the minimum threshold being met. No one should be penalised for personal circumstances that would make no good sense for them to follow the crowd. On the other hand, it is also true that a hyper-majority should not be made to suffer because of an unreasonable individual. Singapore's consent thresholds (80% generally and 90% for newer properties) facilitate profitable en bloc sale through competitive bidding, orchestrated by a Collective Sale Committee elected from among the owners themselves. The sellers typically enjoy a massive value uplift as potential (re)developers seek to outbid each other. But this only happens for higher end/private strata properties. It does not work this way for owners of public housing built by the housing development board (HDB). Malaysia's urban renewal needs are much skewed towards this 'HDB-equivalent' segment, but are not supported by any unifying/federal framework which enables redevelopment of a common class of public housing (in the manner that city-state Singapore can). Seen in this light, it is understandable now why our legislative trajectory for urban renewal is not putting its 'consent threshold' into a land/property law, in which logically, no one else but the owners would have the right to negotiate. So, this again points to the potential merits in having a URA – with all the appropriate processes and safeguards for achieving acceptable outcomes despite our contrasting approach to the problem, i.e. the public-private partnership models which devolve too much on private sector initiative/control. Fundamentally, the entire premise of promoting in-situ resettlement through 'joint-venture participation' of the owners is about reducing developers' capital outlay by taking away 80% of the land acquisition costs and shedding a significant part of the economic risks to owners. This basic truth must feature prominently in finding a morally appropriate balance between the rights of businesses and ordinary citizens. Peter Leong Public policy adviser KL Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association (KLRA+SD)
Free Malaysia Today
12-05-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Proposed URA: Consider the facts and hard truths
From Peter Leong Razak Mansion is repeatedly held out as a success story of urban renewal and, despite ongoing issues such as maintenance deficits, is perhaps deservedly the poster child for this formative stage of legislation and policy-making. It is also true that the old Razak Mansion dwellers were successfully re-housed without the help of any Urban Renewal Act (URA), and that similar 'in-situ resettlements' to facilitate urban renewal could likewise be achieved. The housing and local government ministry's urban renewal guidelines, which drew from the learnings of Razak Mansion and were launched in September 2023, did not take into consideration the existence of a URA. It was detailed enough in its process flows that we could see how it would work without a URA. But irrespective of the polemics and political narratives, this is no reason to outright reject the potential merits of having a URA – a potential that can only be achieved through a much more inclusive and rights-based consultation of the draft bill's provisions than what we are seeing now. Specifically for Kuala Lumpur, which has a different town planning act (Act 267 instead of 172), a form of 'URA' already seems to be embedded therein – at a level of detail not contemplated by the rest of the country's Act 172. Most notable is the action area provision, the declaration of which affords a window of opportunity for owners to exercise their right to self-initiate redevelopment before state authorities can take over. But even this cannot be the silver bullet. The proliferation of strata properties since then also means that in the majority of cases, a (self-)action area is unlikely to materialise, as the owners have to reach 100% consent. Therefore, for Kuala Lumpur as with the rest of the country, the best prospects for a way forward lie in an all-stakeholder consultation with open and equal access to statistics and sectoral expertise, founded on a clear acknowledgement of the need to balance economic priorities and the right to do business with the rights of ordinary citizens. The URA draft bill proclaims itself as a 'town planning law' while describing its 80% (or 75%) prescriptions as 'consent thresholds'. This is totally different from the consent thresholds of the foreign countries against which the local housing and development has (perhaps inappropriately) benchmarked us, which are in land/property law. For example, Singapore's is in its Strata Titles Act, which we have here too as Act 318. From the best information available so far, there is no intention to amend Act 318's 100% consent requirement for terminating a strata scheme. So our URA seems to be really about adding some kind of structure to the 'Razak Mansion' way of doing it, and in the process augmenting the bureaucratic structures (or creating them where they did not exist before) – and setting these up as chains of authority that would eventually be applied towards dealing with the minority non-consenters once the minimum threshold is met. Others have already written in depth about the evils of the compulsory acquisition of minority holdings and the likelihood of unfair (under-)valuation of minority units, i.e. at existing resale market value without any uplift for plot ratio/GDV enhancement, on the basis that 'they refused to participate in joint venturing with the developer.' Simply put, no one should be penalised for personal circumstances that make no good sense for them to follow the crowd. On the other hand, it is also true that a hyper-majority should not be made to suffer by the unreasonable individual. Singapore's consent thresholds (80% generally, and 90% for newer properties), which are under its strata property law, facilitate profitable en bloc sales through competitive bidding, orchestrated by a collective sale committee elected from among the owners themselves. These are very 'enriching' to the sellers, who typically enjoy a massive value uplift as potential (re)developers seek to outbid each other. But this only happens for higher-end/private strata properties. It does not work this way for owners of public housing built by the Housing Development Board (HDB) (Google 'Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme' or 'SERS'). Malaysia's urban renewal needs are much skewed towards this 'HDB-equivalent' segment but are not supported by any unifying/federal framework that enables the redevelopment of a common class of public housing (in the manner that city-state Singapore can). Seen in this light, it is understandable why our legislative trajectory for urban renewal is not putting its 'consent threshold' into a land/property law, which logically no one else but the owners would have the right to negotiate. This again points to the potential merits of having a URA – not necessarily focused only on the 'HDB-equivalent' categories, but certainly with all the appropriate processes and safeguards for achieving acceptable outcomes despite our starkly contrasting approach to the problem – such as public private partnership models, which devolve or 'abdicate' too much to private sector initiative or control. Fundamentally, the entire premise of promoting in-situ resettlement through the 'joint venture participation' of the owners is about reducing developers' capital outlay by taking away 80% of the land acquisition costs, and shedding a significant part of the economic risks to owners. In the complex economics and intricacies of executing redevelopment projects, this basic truth must feature prominently in finding a morally appropriate balance between the rights of businesses and ordinary citizens. Peter Leong is a volunteer with Selamatkan Kuala Lumpur and public policy adviser to the Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
