<img loading="lazy" class="aligncenter wp-image-3179765 size-full" src="https://media.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/772378ae-kl-skyline-envatoelements-101025.webp" alt="KL skyline" width="1600" height="1000" />
From Boo Jia Cher
The abrupt removal of Maimunah Mohd Sharif as Kuala Lumpur mayor and the immediate appointment of her replacement without public explanation should alarm anyone who lives in this city.
It is not about whether either of them is capable of performing well. It is about the fact that millions of people who depend on City Hall had absolutely no say.
Kuala Lumpur remains one of the world’s major capitals where residents cannot choose their mayor, cannot elect their council, and cannot influence leadership transitions that shape their daily lives. In 2025, this is unacceptable.
A city of voters without a vote
KL residents contend with floods, traffic-choked streets, over-development, thin public transport coverage, threats against green and public spaces, and planning decisions that often favour developers over neighbourhoods.
Taxes and the cost of living are high. Yet, under the Federal Capital Act, the city’s top leadership answers upward to Putrajaya, not outward to the people who live here.
The mayor’s position is treated like a civil service posting. City Hall can be reshuffled overnight with no transparency, no accountability, and no obligation to justify decisions to the public.
Even Setiawangsa MP Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad has openly called for the restoration of local elections, acknowledging that the current system is outdated and corrosive to trust.
Fear mongering as policy
Still, the moment the idea resurfaces, certain politicians respond with the same tired tactic: race-baiting. Instead of debating governance, they warn vaguely of “instability” and resurrect old fears of racial tension, as if giving KL residents the right to vote is somehow a threat to national security.
This cynical reflex insults KL folks. It suggests that Malaysians are incapable of choosing leaders based on ideas and performance. It frames democratic accountability as dangerous.
And it reduces perfectly legitimate urban concerns, like cleaner streets, safer walkways, flood mitigation, transparent budgets, into imaginary racial flashpoints. It is an argument rooted not in public interest, but in fear of losing political control.
Democracy forces accountability
If anyone needs proof that urban voters can and do choose leaders based on ideas rather than identity, they should look at the recent New York City mayoral election. Zohran Mamdani won by offering a clear, inclusive, policy-driven agenda: freezing rents, making buses free, expanding childcare, and pursuing a humane housing-first response to homelessness.
He spoke to people’s actual needs and the daily grind of living in an expensive city.
His opponent, Andrew Cuomo, tried the opposite. With no compelling vision and vested interests in protecting NYC’s rich, he leaned heavily on racist smears, calling Mamdani an “Islamist extremist” and painting him as a threat to the American way of life.
It was a desperate attempt to turn the election into a referendum on fear rather than affordability and governance. Voters rejected him. They chose the candidate with substance, not slurs.
New Yorkers proved that when voters are respected, they respond maturely. When candidates are forced to engage with real issues, democracy works. And when race is weaponised, the public is capable of seeing through it.
KL deserves the same faith in its people.
What a KL mayoral election could look like?
A KL mayoral race would force candidates to confront the issues that actually shape daily life: flooding, walkability, over-development, weak public transport, the struggles of small businesses, and the rising cost of housing.
Campaigns would revolve around concrete proposals on climate resilience, neighbourhood-level budgeting, transparent procurement, and long-term planning, not on invisible political calculations in Putrajaya.
A mayor chosen by voters would have to defend every major decision, from land deals to redevelopment plans, and maintain public trust over a full term. Instead of a leader who serves entirely at the discretion of the federal government, KL would finally have leadership accountable to the people who live in the city and bear the consequences of its decisions.
KL’s mayor should serve the people, not the powerful
Local elections will not solve every problem, but they will change the incentives that shape how KL is run. A mayor who depends on public support will govern differently from one who depends solely on federal appointment.
They will prioritise the lived experience of residents, not the comfort of politically connected developers. They will listen, they will justify, they will explain.
Democracy does not guarantee perfect governance. But the absence of democracy guarantees unaccountable governance.
The time for elections is now
KL is a mature, cosmopolitan city. Its residents are educated, globally exposed, and politically aware. The argument that Jakartans, New Yorkers, Londoners, and Bangkok residents can elect their mayors while KL folks somehow cannot is absurd.
The sudden change of mayor is not the core issue; it is the symptom of a system that denies KL residents the basic right to choose the leadership that shapes their lives.
It is time to restore local elections. Let KL folks decide who leads their city. Let campaigns be fought on ideas, not racial threats. Let KL have the democracy it deserves, not the one politicians fear.
&nbsp;
Boo Jia Cher is an FMT reader
The views shared are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

MatchPoint Times

Abrupt KL mayoral switch deepens need for local elections

City administrators must be answerable for their actions, and this is possible only if they have to seek endorsement from local residents.

Affin Bank snaps up Pheim Asset Management for RM50mil

I am CEO, not ‘consultant’ to Harimau Malaya, says Rob Friend