URA Bill misstep highlights greater professionalism needed from ministers, civil servants

On Jan 23, the Madani Cabinet took the rare step of withdrawing the Urban Renewal Bill (URA Bill)—originally slated for its second reading in Parliament—for comprehensive revision.

The decision came after months of resistance from Members of Parliament across the political spectrum, the National House Buyers Association (HBA), the Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association (KLRA+SD), urban activists, community groups, and legal commentators—all pointing to serious structural concerns in the Bill that risked undermining constitutional protections and property rights.

Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming, who championed the legislation as a vehicle for rejuvenating ageing urban areas, now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to acknowledge that the Bill, as originally drafted, required substantial refinement. Earlier confidence surrounding the Bill diminished once the Cabinet decided to withdraw it for review.

This episode should not be viewed simply as a procedural hiccup. It highlights a more serious issue about the role and responsibility of career civil servants—the permanent administrative backbone that advises ministers, and prepares the legislation that Parliament is asked to adopt. Civil servants are supposed to possess the institutional knowledge and technical expertise essential for sound policy development and legislative drafting.

A bill withdrawn, but not without cause

The URA Bill was designed to provide a statutory framework for urban renewal—a pressing concern in Malaysia’s rapidly urbanising cities where ageing housing stock and infrastructure demand attention. Ideally, such legislation would balance development goals with robust protections for owners, occupiers, residents’ rights, due process, and constitutional guarantees.

Instead, the Bill drew broad criticism on flawed consent thresholds, extensive executive powers, inadequate safeguards for minority property owners and tenants, and potential conflicts with constitutional land rights. It was further alleged by stakeholders that certain residential site owners (including the 91 residential sites identified by the KL City Hall (DBKL) were insufficiently consulted, with complaints lodged regarding aggressive approaches by parties linked to redevelopment interests. Police reports were reportedly made in some instances.

The accumulation of these substantive concerns made its passage untenable—even for a government normally capable of advancing contentious legislations through Parliament.

The Cabinet’s decision to withdraw the Bill reflected recognition that the draft legislation was not merely imperfect, but required material reconsideration before proceeding.

The official statement noted that “the existing Bill be withdrawn to allow improvements, including amendments, and additional provisions before being reintroduced in an enhanced form”, adding that the move reflected the Cabinet’s commitment to better safeguard owners’ rights.

Ministers are accountable—but so are their advisers

Elected ministers, by virtue of their political mandate, must ultimately defend and promote government policy. However, it is the civil servants in the relevant ministry, and planning agencies who prepare the drafts, model the legal framework, and advise on compatibility with the Federal Constitution.

A legislative lapse of such scale—one that appears to contradict constitutional principles or unsettle established legal balances—is not merely a political embarrassment. It raises legitimate questions about whether the professional advice provided to the minister was sufficiently rigorous, critical, and grounded in legal prudence.

Career civil servants are meant to be guardians of legality and due process. They are expected to flag structural weaknesses early, long before a Bill reaches the Cabinet table or the floor of the Dewan Rakyat.

When a Bill like the URA is found to contain defects and perceived unfairness serious enough to halt its progression, the question extends beyond political miscalculation. It becomes a matter of whether the civil servants entrusted with drafting and advising exercised due diligence, foresight, and professional independence.

Did they critically assess the constitutional implications?

Did they ensure that provisions affecting consent, compensation, and compulsory acquisition were legally robust and ethically defensible? Was the drafting sufficiently precise to avoid ambiguity, and future litigation?

Could the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) be invoked against minority owners who refused to participate in redevelopment? Could URA legislation and the LAA coherently coexist when they served different statutory purposes under different ministries?

Was full consideration given to Article 13 of the Federal Constitution? Why was 30 years selected as the redevelopment benchmark—and was it supported by empirical research or official studies?

What was the outcome of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) conducted by the Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC)? Why was a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) issued if substantial structural concerns remained unresolved?

These are not peripheral questions. They go back to the integrity of legislative design.

See related analyses:
How Urban Renewal Act proposals contravene Federal Constitution
URA’s 30-year ‘trigger point’ to invoke redevelopment based on myth

The problem with ‘friendly’ advice

In many ministries, there exists a subtle but problematic dynamic: civil servants, whether out of career caution, cultural deference, or institutional habit, may hesitate to offer advice that robustly challenges political priorities.

Legal objections may be softened in memoranda. Structural risks may be framed as manageable. Political expediency may overshadow institutional caution.

The result is not loyalty, but compliance—and compliance is not the same as professional integrity.

It is easy for officials to adopt deferential language, and avoid confrontation. What is more difficult—and more necessary—is candid analysis that states clearly: “This clause risks constitutional challenge,” or “These consent thresholds may undermine public confidence,” or “This delegation of power may be legally excessive.”

Policies that affect land rights and community structures require long-term institutional judgment. They cannot be shaped primarily by political momentum.

From the sequence of events surrounding the URA Bill’s withdrawal, it appears that stronger internal challenge may have been warranted. This is not to single out individuals, but to underscore the responsibility of the administrative machinery to anchor policy in legality and public interest.

Civil servants must not merely execute instructions. They must advise with independence, professionalism and courage. Integrity means choosing principled analysis over comfortable acquiescence.

Ministers are the public face; advisers must be the institutional conscience

Ministers will come and go. Political leadership shifts with elections and coalitions. Civil servants remain. That continuity is valuable only if it is accompanied by professional independence, and fidelity to the rule of law.

When risky drafting proceeds without robust internal scrutiny, institutional credibility suffers. This is especially so in housing policy, where the stakes are immediate: homes, life savings, mortgage obligations, and security of tenure.

Poorly calibrated legislation does not simply stall—it generates uncertainty, unsettles markets, and erodes trust.

Towards better lawmaking

The withdrawal of the URA Bill should serve as a wake-up call not only for the minister, but for the broader administrative framework responsible for legislative design.

Civil servants should recommit to:

• Rigorous constitutional vetting of draft legislation;
• Meaningful stakeholder engagement at formative stages;
• Clear and candid advice to ministers, even when politically inconvenient;
• Institutional courage in recording professional reservations;
• Comprehensive socio-economic impact evaluation, rather than selective validation.

Good governance cannot rely on public relations optics. Institutional credibility is built on defensible drafting, not presentation.

Civil servants also deserve protection when they discharge their duties in good faith—ncluding safeguards for those who raise concerns about legality or impropriety.

Accountability beyond the Cabinet bench

The URA Bill’s withdrawal is a necessary recalibration. It should also prompt deeper reflection on how legislation is conceived, scrutinised and advanced.

If civil servants are to be more than administrative executors, they must embrace their role as custodians of legality and trustees of the public interest—even when this requires difficult conversations.

Withdrawing a flawed Bill is corrective. Ensuring that its successor reflects constitutional discipline, empirical grounding, and genuine public engagement is restorative.

Only then can public confidence be strengthened.

For the unawares, Malaysia’s Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC), established under Act 700, provides a statutory avenue for members of the public to raise their concerns when they believe enforcement agencies have acted improperly. Information is available at www.eaic.gov.my.

This article is written by Datuk Chang Kim Loong, honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association (HBA).

HBA is a voluntary non-government and not-for-profit organisation manned wholly by volunteers.

HBA can be contacted at:
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.hba.org.my
Tel: +6012 334 5676
The views expressed are the writer's and do not necessarily reflect EdgeProp’s.

Unlock Malaysia’s shifting industrial map. Track where new housing is emerging as talents converge around I4.0 industrial parks across Peninsular Malaysia. Download the Industrial Special Report now.