URA runs foul of constitution, lawyer warns Putrajaya

Vocal rights group Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has warned that the proposed Urban Renewal Act (URA) violates the Federal Constitution, describing the bill which was recently tabled in the Dewan Rakyat for first reading as "the biggest danger to the constitutional right to ownership of property since independence".

LFL, among groups that have come out strongly to oppose the proposed law that is being pushed by Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming, also concluded that the bill is "irredeemable" and must be withdrawn.

"The bill, which is unconstitutional, must not proceed to second reading as scheduled on Aug 27," said LFL adviser N Surendran.

He said a major problem was clause 21 of the bill, which authorises the minister or state authority to declare any building or dwelling an "urban renewal area".

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

This allows the authorities to acquire a house regardless of the owner's consent if only 75% to 80% of the other owners in the same area agree, he said.

The government's move to introduce URA created a stir due to its reduction in the threshold for building owner consent from 100% to 80%.

Putrajaya has argued that the law would promote development in Kuala Lumpur.

It is understood that 30 areas have been earmarked for "regeneration".

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the government would propose three threshold values according to the age of the building.

"If the building is less than 30 years old, (it will require) 80% of the owners to express their consent before negotiations can begin," he told Dewan Rakyat in February.

"For buildings over 30 years old, 75% ( of owners) must agree, and for abandoned and derelict buildings, 51%, which is a simple majority, will be required."

'No escaping'

Surendran said there was no escaping the URA juggernaut, and warned that authorities would justify forced acquisition of property on the grounds that it was dilapidated or in need of "regeneration" or "redevelopment".

He said this puts the proposed law in violation of Article 13 of the constitution, pertaining to the right to property ownership.

"This is one of the most important and basic right of citizens in a democratic country. But by virtue of the wide power under clause 21 to declare any area an urban renewal area, as explained above, that sacrosanct right in Article 13 is rendered illusory," said Surendran.

He said the authorities will have the ultimate power to seize any property based on their subjective judgement.

"It is an unconstrained and unbridled power. Pursuant to Article 8 of the constitution and decisions of the federal courts, any law which renders ‘illusory’ a constitutional right such as Article 13, is void, unconstitutional and of no effect.

"Parliament must not knowingly pass an unconstitutional bill," he added.

Surendran said with the power to forcibly acquire property, a quarter of residents in a condominium building could lose their homes.

He further said the "excessive and disproportionate" nature of URA was in breach of Article 8 of the constitution.

"And any right-thinking Malaysian will agree, it is also wrong by any standard as it puts property rights in grave jeopardy."

He said there were fears that the process to obtain consent involved pressure or the threat of coercive force.

"The processes by which developers obtain this consent has also been mired in controversy in many cases involving compulsory acquisition, with residents complaining of undue pressure and threats.

"The much- hated Land Acquisition Act itself has a long history of causing injustice and unfair deprivation of homes and property. This can be seen in the endless controversy and stalemate over the redevelopment at Kampung Sungai Baru in Kuala Lumpur," said Surendran, who is also the legal adviser to Kampung Sungai Baru residents who are fighting back against authorities and developers trying to evict them.