What's behind the Kampung Sungai Baru land dispute?

SHAH ALAM – The demolition of homes in Kampung Sungai Baru has become a contentious issue on social media following a series of viral clips showing unrest, demonstrations and a police presence as chaos unfolded in the area.

At the heart of the incident was the demolition of homes, which triggered anger among residents and led to clashes.

While most flat owners accepted the package, a smaller group of terrace-house owners rejected it. - FILE PIX

The demolition took place as part of a long-standing redevelopment plan for the area.

The long-term aim, put forward by authorities and a developer, was to replace older flats and terrace houses with a high-rise, mixed-use development to modernise the area.

These plans dated back decades and were revived in the 2010s as Kuala Lumpur, the capital city, continued to push for urban transformation under the Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2040 (KL2040).

Not all residents, however, consented to the redevelopment plan. A smaller group of terrace-house owners rejected the compensation package offered, which they felt was far below the real market value of land in central Kuala Lumpur.

Some also argued that they had legal or historical rights to their plots.

While most flat owners accepted the offer, the dissenting residents insisted the terms were unfair and challenged the acquisition in court.

The government and the developer relied on the Land Acquisition Act 1960, which allowed land to be taken for public projects.

When negotiations failed, the matter proceeded through the courts.

After long disputes, the court eventually issued orders giving the developer the right to take vacant possession of certain lots.

On Sept 11, enforcement teams entered Kampung Sungai Baru to carry out a court order for vacant possession.

The writ gave bailiffs and police the authority to remove people, cut electricity, and begin demolishing several terrace houses.

The operation involved 26 individual lots comprising 37 terrace houses marked for redevelopment.

It was led by a court bailiff, assisted by police and the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU), while contractors moved in to remove doors and clear the affected houses.

From early morning, residents and their supporters had gathered in protest.

At approximately 10am, according to media reports, some tried to push into the cordoned-off demolition zone.

Police blocked them and a scuffle broke out. In the chaos, Dang Wangi district police chief, Assistant Commissioner Sulizmie Affendy Sulaiman was struck on the head by a thrown object and was seen bleeding.

Videos of the clash quickly spread on social media.

Despite the tension, police ordered the crowd to disperse and the eviction went ahead. Residents continued to demand a halt to the demolition until all legal challenges were resolved.

Following the incident, Federal Territories Minister Dr Zaliha Mustafa said the decision came from the court and had to be implemented, adding that civil servants could not be stopped from performing their duties.

Officials also described that compensation and replacement housing had been offered and that those still unhappy with the terms could continue their challenges through legal channels.

Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Fadil Marsus condemned the violence and confirmed that several people were arrested.

Dang Wangi district police chief Assistant Commissioner Sulizmie Affendy Sulaiman was injured while overseeing a power supply cut-off operation in Kampung Sungai Baru on Thursday.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim also condemned the attack, describing it as a serious act that should not have been repeated and ordering a full investigation.

Titiwangsa MP Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani had been tasked with reviewing the incident and its fallout.

Officials further urged the public to remain calm and warned against outside provocateurs attempting to stir up trouble.

Investigations into the assault and the arrests were expected to proceed, and legal teams on both sides were anticipated to push for clarity around any outstanding appeals.

The episode might have sharpened debates about urban redevelopment, heritage and who benefits when city land is repurposed.

For affected residents, the immediate issue was rehousing, compensation and whether the courts would alter or suspend future enforcement.

For the wider public, the incident raised questions about how redevelopment was balanced with legal rights, historical land status and social fairness.