Progress Development And Public Housing Needs

---

Choose sites that minimise disruption, avoid displacing ordinary people, and ensure that compensation is equitable.I have disagreed with many of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s policies during his time in power. Yet, credit must be given where it is due.
When he envisioned the Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC – Petronas Twin Towers), the project did not involve uprooting urban smallholdings, let alone Malay landowners.
The site was the old KL racecourse along Jalan Ampang. Relocation was negotiated with the club owners, who were compensated fairly.
The process was orderly – no forced evictions, no street protests, and no need for police intervention.
Even for what became the tallest building in the country, ordinary people were spared.
Putrajaya and KLIA 
Putrajaya was planned with the same principle in mind.
Despite its massive scale, it did not involve dismantling kampung life or bulldozing through long-established neighbourhoods.
Land was acquired from plantation estates, with compensation settled through proper channels.
KLIA offers yet another example. By the 1990s, Subang Airport had reached its limits.
Expanding it would have meant tearing through densely populated areas and buying out countless small plots – messy, costly, and socially damaging.
The government instead chose Sepang, then plantation land, where acquisition was cheaper and disruption minimal.
Again, the guiding principle was respected: minimise harm to citizens.
For all his faults, Mahathir understood this. He pursued ambitious projects but avoided trampling on the rights of ordinary Malaysians.
Why Kampung Sungai Baru? 
This is why the decision to push land acquisition in Kg Baru – specifically Kg Sungai Baru – reportedly made in 2016, is so troubling.
Why target one of the last remaining Malay enclaves in central Kuala Lumpur? Why push redevelopment that displaces families, sows resentment, and forces resistance from the very community the government is supposed to protect?
If housing needs were the main justification, then the method used has been deeply flawed.
Displacing people to serve private developers’ interests cannot be passed off as progress beneficial to the public.
Singapore’s HDB model 
Malaysia should be looking at models that genuinely address public housing needs.
Singapore’s Housing Development Board (HDB) is one such example, a state-led system widely regarded as one of the most effective and equitable in the world.
Unlike Malaysia, where private developers dominate, Singapore places the state squarely at the helm of housing provision.
The result: affordable, quality homes for millions, especially those in the low- and middle-income brackets.
Key features include:
Government intervention: active state involvement, without having to rely on market forces alone.Affordability and quality: homes built to serve ordinary citizens, not profit margins.Direct provision: The state constructs and allocates housing, with a strict one-family-one-unit policy.Regulation and subsidies: targeted support to keep housing affordable especially for first time homeowners/buyers.Social welfare: public housing is treated as a core pillar of the welfare state.Long-term protection: rules are put in place to prevent speculation and keep homes affordable for future generations.The HDB model worked because it was designed around citizens’ needs, not developers’ profits.
HDB versus Urban Renewal Act 
If Malaysia were to seriously consider a HDB-style system, then the proposed Urban Renewal Act (URA) would be redundant – or, at the very least, require a complete rethink.
As it stands, the URA looks more like a legal instrument for redevelopment by developers, with land acquisition framed as “urban renewal”.
As Titiwangsa MP Johari Ghani said recently, the government must play a critical role in redevelopment as private developers may go bust or shut down their business.
Thus far, the emphasis appears to have been on consolidation and commercial gain, not affordable housing for ordinary Malaysians.
By contrast, the HDB-style model puts housing under the government’s direct responsibility – with preference for “one-family, one-unit” and the “first-home concept” as the prime objective.
It ensures affordability, stability, and fairness – not speculative projects dressed up as “progress”.
The Urban Renewal Act serves developers, but a HDB-style model serves the people.
Which path will Malaysia choose?
Perhaps opposition leader Hamzah Zainudin will raise this important issue in Parliament soon. - FMT
The author can be reached at [email protected]
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---