APRIL 11 — “Buangkan yang keruh, ambil yang jernih” (Remove the bad, take the good). But in Malaysia we always do the opposite. Instead of learning and taking the good things from other places, we tend to take the ones that doesn’t work so well. We take identity politics, instead of pushing for civil rights. We practice first-past-the-post, instead of proportional representation. And now we might adopt urban renewal laws that will suck out life out from our cities, instead of revitalising them.
Recently, Federal Territories Minister Abdul Khalid Abdul Samad announced a plan by the government to introduce new urban renewal laws to redevelop old buildings. One possible law is regarding en bloc sale, where he suggested that for buyers or developers to buy old buildings, instead of requiring 100 per cent agreement from all the owners as stated in the current law, they will only need 80 per cent or less agreement to proceed with the purchase of the building.
En-bloc sale, also known as collective sale, follows what appear to be a characteristic of democracy, which is majority rules. If the majority owners of a given property agree to the terms, the selling of the property can proceed without getting consent from minority owners who are against the sale. But democracy, although it follows the rule of majority, also provides protection for the minority, or it is supposed to at least. In the case of collective sale, even though the minority owners are also compensated, but the decision will coerce them to part with their property. Property rights become property wrongs. Hence, it is crucial to provide a legal platform and mechanism that can allow them to voice their objections, as well as protect minorities from the tyranny of majorities.
Regarding urban renewal, there is a tendency to believe that it is important to get rid of old buildings, to make space for newer, bigger buildings. This comes from the idea of best land use — the best use of a vacant or improved property to ensure the highest financial return. There is also the belief that any construction is good for the city, as a sign of progress, a belief that is quite entrenched that there’s even a saying that goes “mayors love cranes.” But as much as it makes economic sense to push for development, to get rid of old buildings and replace them with new ones, there are long-term effects that we need to consider.
Old buildings play an important role in city life. The late urban scholar Jane Jacobs put forth conditions that are indispensable for city vitality, and one of them is the need for the city to have a good proportion of old buildings, mingling with the new ones. Conservationists and heritage lovers have somewhat perverted this idea to push for old buildings to be given heritage status and be saved from demolition, but her argument to keep old buildings is not to turn them into heritage sites, but rather to maintain the availability of affordable and cheap properties. In the 1960s, when this idea was proposed, old building means cheap and affordable, not a potential tourist site with Unesco World Heritage status.
The rationale to keep old buildings is to maintain the diversity of the area, to keep it open to different uses and dwellers. In the central area of Kuala Lumpur, there are not many of these old buildings left. The ones that remain are most likely to have multiple owners, and these properties are the ones that have been eyed by developers to take over, demolish, and build something new. One example of this type of building is Wisma Central, located on Jalan Ampang, right next to KLCC and opposite Avenue K. If the en-bloc sale gets pushed forward, surely this piece of property will be bought over and replaced with something as big and as shiny as the buildings surrounding it. But this will not only impact people and businesses currently occupying that building, it will also affect the rest of people and businesses in the neighborhood.
Wisma Central currently houses many small businesses, from stationary and printing shops, to tailors, auditors, as well as accounting, legal, and architect firms. It also houses a few relatively cheap eateries, which always get busy during lunchtime on weekdays. This is all made possible due to the cheap rent they offer. The main patrons for these establishments are people who are working in the neighborhood, either in KLCC, Avenue K, Citibank, etc. If Wisma Central is no longer around, not only the businesses in the building would have to move — either far away from the city centre, or be prepared to pay double or triple if they want to stay in the area — workers and businesses in the neighborhood will also lose out. No more cheap lunch, no more cheap printing services, no more cheap cobblers, etc. Not to mention the loss of one of the liveliest places along the Jalan Ampang stretch.
The absence of old (cheap and affordable) buildings will also cut off opportunities for small businesses and low wage workers to move into the city. In an era where cities are competing to attract innovation and start-up companies, the availability of cheap rents and services are crucial for these businesses to survive. National figures have also shown that small and medium enterprises are one of the biggest employers in the country, with more than 60 per cent share of total national employment. Surely it is wise for the city to open its doors for these establishments to set foot in.
A blind push for en-bloc sale, coupled with an urban development idea of constant renewal can severely jeopardise efforts to create an inclusive city, and threaten its longevity. Kuala Lumpur fancies itself of being a city of “contrasts and diversity”, as stated in its slogan. But rather than fulfilling this dream, the city risks itself of becoming homogenous, dull and lifeless. For this reason, we need to rethink our urban development strategies to make sure that we don’t end up in a situation that only benefits the few and hurting the many.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
