By Datuk Chang Kim Loong

THE Minister of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) wants to proceed with the proposed Urban Redevelopment Act (URA), reasoning that redevelopment, rejuvenation or renewal of real estate within cities is necessary. KPKT proposes a 75% consent threshold for en-bloc sale for urban redevelopment, aligning with international standards like in Singapore.

The National House Buyers Association (HBA) has expressed its concern about this proposal and strongly opposes any consent threshold other than 100%. No owner should be disadvantaged in the name of redevelopment, especially when such a move may be unnecessary.

HBA is worried that the URA could resurrect the contentious en-bloc strata sale proposal from over a decade ago, which was primarily aimed at enabling developers to seize land for profit rather than for genuine rejuvenation to benefit property owners.

Stay versus sell

Enacting this new law for en-bloc sales without obtaining the consent of all owners could disrupt any development, regardless of its strata status, and potentially fuel social unrest.

Once-quiet housing estates can become tumultuous when discussions on redevelopment arise. Such an endeavour is more than a business transaction — emotions and finances intertwine, fostering mistrust and suspicion among neighbours.

Minority homeowners face a dilemma: they may feel pressured to comply with the majority’s decision to sell their properties for profit. Beware of dissent when politics enters the realm of property ownership and divides the residents.

Ultimately, the primary beneficiaries of this situation are property developers and their agents who profit from the turmoil while residents grapple with uncertainty and discord.

Cries of outrage

HBA would like to highlight some of the grievances that are available in cyberspace from our research on the en bloc strata laws in Singapore. The following are excerpts from critics:

The Ugly – Every news article reports a successful en bloc sale in a similar way: How much is the project sold? What is the estimated amount each owner can pocket? Which developer pays the top price? What is the potential of the future project?

The media is only covering part of the successful sale story. Have they interviewed the rest of the owners (20%) who voted against selling their homes? En bloc sale is a battle between sell and stay owners. A peaceful housing estate can suddenly turn upside down when the money talk begins.

The innocent bystander — Outsiders may think there is celebration for a successful en bloc sale. Scour the blogs on both sides of the debate to know the sentiments. The once-serene neighbourhood is now filled with tension, with both sides accusing each other of destroying their hopes and dreams.

Some members of the majority (84%) want to sue the minority for deliberately delaying the process for them to access their windfall and capitalise on the property market for a bigger gain.

Has the majority forgotten that they initiated the sale of not only their roofs but also the roofs of the minority by exploiting the legal 80% rule to achieve their selfish greed? Now they have the gall to sue the minority.

Splitting the community — I was secretly happy that the en bloc sale didn’t get through. It has nothing to do with sour grapes. It is also not because I am so rich that I don’t need the proceeds. I don’t want this kind of windfall if our neighbours have to compromise their integrity and destroy the serenity of our home.

Peace of mind is priceless. Only people who have gone through en bloc sale will understand. It is not worth compromising your integrity to win the jackpot of an en bloc sale.

Work, stress and uncertainty — Many residents who face a collective sale of their homes are going through a lot of stress, tension, frustration and disappointment.

When the en bloc sale finally goes through, residents have to deal with new uncertainties: Will they have sufficient time to find a new home given the timeline to move out of the old estate? Can they afford a similar or better unit in the same location with the money from the en bloc sale? Will they miss the familiar environment and friendly neighbours?

Pressure from the majority

The Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA) provides for contributions by unit owners to the maintenance account and sinking fund account so that strata buildings can be properly maintained, refurbished and upgraded.

Unit owners should have the freedom to decide on how to go about any redevelopment of their strata schemes without having an unconstitutional law that allows the might and greed of the majority to override the constitutional rights of the minority homeowners.

Does this draconian law envision the right of the minority to be compensated by being given a replacement home on the same lot after redevelopment and an interim shelter during the redevelopment period?

Instead of building community, the proposed URA goals will break up families which are an integral part of the community.

Local success stories without URA

Perbadanan Negeri Selangor (PKNS) was successful in its redevelopment of a block of dilapidated low-cost flats each measuring 300 sq ft by procuring a 100% mandate of the owners. Their low-cost flats were finally exchanged for a 900 sq ft condominium complete with common facilities and the owners returned to where they once lived.

Another case of interest would be the 1Razak Mansion (in Sungai Besi) where the walk-up flats were torn down and replaced by a condominium with three-bedroom units plus a car bay. The owners were fortunate to have participated in the redevelopment; no one was forced.

In conclusion, HBA continues to oppose the pretext of urban renewal or redevelopment of strata property in Malaysia because it is a mere façade to hide the true intention of overriding or eroding a host of other legislations currently in place to safeguard the fundamental right to own property.

HBA sees this as a coercive acquisition for profit, disregarding the rights of dissenting property owners. We believe that the proposed Urban Renewal Act is regressive and potentially violates property ownership rights.