PUSHING OUT THE HARMFULLY, SAY Competitors
Before its parliamentary presentation, the act has previously drawn criticism from politicians and some home owners.
Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, a deputy chairman of PAS and Kubang Kerian MP, argued that the current policy was enough.  ,
He said,” There is no need to create a new rules for development; what matters is more is ensuring that urban populations are not monopolized by a single race.”
The damaged areas may be redeveloped when this Act is passed. He added that those who recently purchased homes for more than RM100, 000 won’t be able to repurchase them for more than RMRM500,000.
Tuan Ibrahim continued,” The chancellor wants capitalists to monopolize the process,” claiming that a secretary had stated lenders are accessible to lend money. This tactic is used sparingly to attract people who can’t afford it, especially Malays and Indians.
Although Malaysia is the country’s largest ethnic group, a sizable proportion of house developers in Malaysia are led by ethnic Chinese.
Tuan Ibrahim made his remarks at a press event on February 19th, according to reports agency Malaysiakini.  ,
His remarks echoe those of PAS Youth’s Hafez, who claimed that the costs” will implicitly claim the voice of minorities, destroy socio-economic balance, and oppress the rights of some groups.”
Hafez said in a speech on February 25 that” this bill is also perceived as putting pressure on industrial residents, particularly the Asian community who are less capable.” Programmers who are interested in the name of metropolitan registration are favored by this new constitutional delivery. Minorities did suffer oppression. They will be forced to leave and renounce their property against their will.
Chang Kim Loong, the National House Buyers Association secretary-general, is another outspoken defender of the legislation.
The partnership, which supports homebuyers ‘ rights, opposes the bill or reconstruction in itself, and not the decreased consent threshold.  ,
Chang argued in a conversation with CNA that the plan to reduce the acceptance threshold violates property rights protected by Article 13 of the Federal Constitution.  ,
He continued, noting that he disagreed with the cultural tone the conversation has adopted because it forces a majority of owners to renounce their property rights against their will.
He added that despite developers offering a one-to-one system exchange, the practice could lead to urbanization and densification.  ,
” Picture a five-storey wall with 200 masters being replaced by a 3, 000-unit highrise.” According to him, a compaction of this size would put pressure on existing infrastructure beyond its capacity, and traffic congestion would get worse.  ,  ,