PM’s lopsided defence of Urban Renewal Act overlooks two glaring weaknesses

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s statement regarding the Urban Renewal Act (URA) has several significant inaccuracies.

[His statement was reported last month.]

The first is that there are no clauses in the act mandating that the original residents will be resettled in the new property developed at that site.

Neither are there any specific clauses stating that the ethnic composition of the new residential properties will be the same as that obtained before the urban renewal project.

These might be the PM’s intentions, and the “Madani” (civil and compassionate) government might try to implement them. But there are no built-in safeguards in the act to ensure that this is observed by future administrations.

The other problem with the PM’s impassionate defence of the act is that it mischaracterises all objections and criticisms as politically motivated and without substance.

The socialist party PSM has identified two glaring weaknesses in the URA.

The first is that the checks and balances mechanism – the urban renewal mediation committee – set up under Section 14 (2) of the draft act is defective because it will be set up by the state government as it wishes.

We need a well-defined process to set up this mediation committee so that it can provide an effective avenue for residents who are being evicted from their homes.

The possibility that the state government might have a special relationship with the developer cannot be discounted.

Thus, this must be an independent mediation committee, composed perhaps of retired judges, senior lawyers and NGO activists, to provide a proper platform for residents who are not happy with the terms of the alternative housing or compensation offered to them.

This committee must have the power to send the proposed plans to compensate the residents back to the drawing board if necessary.

The other weakness is that the URA overlooks the fact that a significant number of the residents in run-down homes are not the owners of these homes.

They are poor families which have sought out residences with low rentals because they cannot afford rentals elsewhere. They represent the poorest families in our cities and towns.

The URA talks about compensating the owners of these properties, but it is silent about the housing needs of the impoverished families who are renting these homes. This omission in the URA must be rectified.

The government should address these two important issues and alter the bill appropriately instead of using political spin to silence the discussion.

The legislation we pass now must stand the test of time by having built-in safeguards that will enable affected residents, both owners and tenants, to push back effectively against offers and actions that are inimical to their interests.