Saravanan emphasised that for most Malaysians, their home represents the culmination of decades of effort and a repository of priceless memories. To thrust them into the renewal process without robust protections, he argued, is unacceptable. He described the URA in its current iteration as dangerously imbalanced, likening it more to a “developers’ charter” than a people‑centred reform.
Central to FOMCA’s concerns is the Act’s consent threshold: the draft law allows redevelopment to proceed with only 75–80 percent approval, depending on a building’s age and condition. Saravanan insists a 95 percent threshold is the only acceptable figure—one that ensures almost unanimous community backing and forces developers to negotiate fairly rather than steamroll ahead.
Beyond consent levels, FOMCA’s proposed safeguards include clear, accessible information for homeowners—delivered in language they fully understand. Consent would need to be independently verified and devoid of coercion. Disputes should be settled through impartial tribunals with equal representation, and legal aid must be available to all affected residents. Compensation ought to reflect not just market value, but also relocation costs and the emotional impact of displacement.
For Dr Saravanan, urban renewal should reinforce community bonds—not fracture them—while restoring public trust in governance. He warned that rushing the URA into law without comprehensive stakeholder input and necessary safeguards could exact a heavy human and social toll, undermining faith in both the government and the legal system.
