FEBRUARY 5 — Kuala Lumpur often speaks the language of global cities. We aspire to be competitive, inclusive and liveable. We brand ourselves as a “City for All”. Yet when it comes to how the city is governed, Kuala Lumpur remains an outlier among major world cities: its residents have no vote in local government and no say in who runs their city.
There are no local government elections. The Mayor of Kuala Lumpur is appointed, not elected. This stands in stark contrast to cities we frequently compare ourselves with — London, Tokyo, Seoul, Bangkok, Taipei and New York — where residents directly elect their mayors and hold them accountable at the ballot box.
This contradiction raises a fundamental question: how can Kuala Lumpur truly be a “City for All” when its people are excluded from deciding how it is governed?
Who the mayor answers to matters
Under the Federal Capital Act 1960 (Act 190), the Commissioner of the City of Kuala Lumpur — commonly known as the Mayor or Datuk Bandar — is appointed by the federal government. The Act concentrates executive authority in this office, while accountability flows upward to the Federal Territories Minister and, ultimately, the Prime Minister, rather than downward to the residents of Kuala Lumpur.
This line of accountability shapes how decisions are made. When a mayor’s position depends on political appointment, incentives naturally align with satisfying the appointing authority rather than responding to public concerns. Residents may be consulted, but consultation is not the same as consent, and feedback is not the same as accountability.
This gap has been illustrated in several high-profile planning decisions, including the degazettement of flood retention ponds such as Kampung Bohol and the Wahyu flood retention ponds to make way for development, despite sustained objections from affected communities. These cases reveal a governance structure in which residents’ voices are acknowledged procedurally, but too often discounted in decisions with serious implications for public safety and long-term urban resilience.
In most global cities, mayoral authority is balanced by an elected city council and legitimised by a popular mandate. Mayors must defend their policies, budgets and priorities to voters who live with the consequences of their decisions. In Kuala Lumpur, residents bear those consequences — from flooding and traffic congestion to housing affordability and public space — without possessing the most basic democratic lever to influence leadership.
This arrangement also falls short of Malaysia’s commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which emphasise inclusive, accountable and participatory governance.
Claims that an elected mayor would be beyond reprimand or discipline are also misleading. In democratic systems worldwide, elected officials — including mayors — remain subject to the law, oversight bodies and criminal prosecution where warranted. International experience shows this clearly. In January 2025, Istanbul’s Beşiktaş Mayor, Rıza Akpolat, was detained in a corruption probe related to public tenders. The case underscores a basic but important point: elections do not place leaders above the law.
Democratic systems rely not on blind trust, but on institutions, enforcement mechanisms and the rule of law to hold leaders accountable while they are in office.
Why mayoral elections are a necessary first step
Reforming city governance does not have to be an all-or-nothing exercise. If the federal administration believes the country is not yet ready to fully restore local government elections nationwide, introducing mayoral elections in Kuala Lumpur is a reasonable and measured first step.
As the capital city, Kuala Lumpur should lead — not lag — in governance reform.
With a population of 1,982,112, Kuala Lumpur is home to a diverse urban electorate. According to the Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) MyCensus 2020, 47.7 per cent of residents are Bumiputera, 41.6 per cent Malaysian Chinese, 10 per cent Malaysian Indian and 0.7 per cent Others — a demographic reality that directly contradicts claims that local elections would place the city under the control of a particular ethnic group.
Calls for mayoral elections are sometimes framed by detractors as race-based or destabilising. This narrative does a disservice to Kuala Lumpur’s residents. What city dwellers are asking for is not racial dominance, but better governance — greater competency, clearer accountability and genuine transparency in how the capital is run.
More recently, some political leaders have suggested that Kuala Lumpur’s entertainment districts and the presence of organised crime would make mayoral elections vulnerable to manipulation by gangs, cartels or underworld interests. Framed as concerns about public order, such arguments risk undermining confidence in the very institutions responsible for enforcing the law.
More importantly, they underestimate the intellect and civic judgment of Kuala Lumpur’s residents. To suggest that the city’s voting population cannot distinguish between credible leadership and criminal influence is to imply that urban Malaysians in the capital are unfit to exercise democratic choice responsibly. This reflects not the realities of urban society, but a troubling lack of trust in public participation.
Why voting must be based on residency
At the heart of the reform debate lies another question: who should be eligible to vote in a mayoral election?
The most defensible answer is simple — residents.
Those who live in the city, raise families, commute daily, use public services and experience the consequences of city decisions should have a say in choosing their mayor. This principle is widely accepted internationally. In Seoul, non-citizen residents with long-term residency are allowed to vote in local elections. In the United Kingdom, citizens of Commonwealth countries can vote in local council elections. When I was studying in the UK, I voted in borough council elections as a resident — an acknowledgement that local democracy is rooted in lived reality, not property ownership alone.
Closer to home, a resident-based electoral roll for Kuala Lumpur could be aligned with Malaysia’s existing national electoral roll, ensuring clarity and administrative simplicity.
Arguments that voting should be restricted to ratepayers or property owners overlook how cities actually function. Residents who do not own property still contribute — through rent that incorporates assessment rates, through consumption, through economic activity and through their role in sustaining the city’s workforce. Cities exist primarily to serve people, not land titles.
Choosing the city we want to be
Kuala Lumpur’s ambition to stand among global cities cannot rest on branding alone. It must be matched by governance structures that recognise residents as active citizens, not passive recipients of policy.
Electing the mayor would not solve every urban problem overnight. But it would realign incentives, strengthen accountability and affirm a basic democratic principle: those who live in the city should have a meaningful role in shaping its leadership.
When residents are excluded from choosing who leads their city, it risks conveying that decisions about Kuala Lumpur are best made without their direct participation. In a capital city of nearly two million residents — many of whom are informed, engaged and deeply invested in its future — such an approach is increasingly difficult to reconcile with the values of trust, shared responsibility and democratic maturity.
A City for All must therefore begin with a clear commitment to inclusion: giving Kuala Lumpur’s residents a direct voice in selecting the leadership responsible for governing their city.
*Joshua Low is the Honorary Secretary of Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association (KLRA+SD), an NGO advocating for a more sustainable and equitable Kuala Lumpur.
*** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
