Relocation Cannot Become Displacement

Relocation Cannot Become Displacement

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar —August 2026

Government is right to protect reserves, drainage corridors and other restricted lands. But for the more than 1000 people marked for relocation, the critical question is whether serviced, accessible alternatives have been prepared—close enough to jobs, schools, transport and the lives families have spent years building.

The Minister of Housing acknowledgement that more than 1000 occupants of restricted areas have been identified for relocation is an important first step. A government cannot responsibly plan relocations without first knowing who is affected, where they live, and why their present occupation cannot be regularized. Likewise, the record of more than 2000 regularization exercises over the past five years shows that regularization, where lawful and safe, remains a necessary tool rather than an act of indulgence.

The Government’s stated distinction between areas capable of regularization and those that cannot be retained—such as drainage and irrigation reserves, riverbanks, dams, coastal zones and other environmentally or infrastructurally sensitive lands—is reasonable in principle. No responsible administration can legitimize settlements that block drainage, threaten flood protection, compromise public reserves, or place families in danger.

But the test of a humane housing policy does not end with declaring that people must move.

It begins with answering a far more consequential question: Where, exactly, are they expected to go?

If the Ministry of Housing and the Central Housing and Planning Authority have already logged more than 1000 people who will have to be relocated, the public should be told whether suitable parcels have already been identified and developed for them. Have the lands been surveyed? Are roads, drainage, water, electricity, schools, transportation, health facilities and security available? Will families be moved to communities within reasonable reach of their jobs and the schools their children attend?

These questions are not an attempt to defend illegal occupation of State land. They go to the heart of whether relocation is being handled as a planned social intervention or merely as an eviction exercise.

A family that has lived for years in Kaneville, Lusignan, Annandale, Good Hope, Sophia, Ogle or another established area has built more than a structure. People have built routines and livelihoods. They have found work nearby, established small businesses, enrolled children in school, arranged transportation, developed support networks and, in many cases, created the practical conditions by which they survive.

Uprooting them and placing them far away in an undeveloped location may technically remove them from a reserve or a riverbank. But it can also deepen hardship. A household may face longer and more expensive travel, lost employment, disruption to children’s education, reduced access to health services, and the uncertainty of moving into an area without basic infrastructure.

That is why the language of “zero tolerance” must be accompanied by a policy of zero indifference.

Lessons From Kaneville

The concerns raised previously in relation to Kaneville remain relevant. The issue was never that the State should permit unsafe or unauthorised occupation indefinitely. The issue is whether the State, having allowed communities to develop over time, has a duty to ensure that any eventual intervention is orderly, transparent, humane and grounded in practical alternatives.

Government is correct that there are tens of thousands of formal housing applicants waiting patiently within the system. Their rights and expectations must be respected. It would be unfair to reward opportunistic land grabbing at the expense of citizens who applied, paid and waited through the lawful process.

However, fairness does not require Government to choose between formal applicants and vulnerable squatters. A mature housing policy must protect both: preserve the integrity of the allocation system while ensuring that families who must move are not pushed into deeper poverty, remoteness or instability.

The relevant distinction should not simply be between “law-abiding applicants” and “illegal occupants.” There must also be recognition of differing circumstances. Some people may have exploited public land knowingly. Others may have occupied land because of poverty, overcrowding, lack of affordable rental options, delayed housing allocations, family breakdown, or the absence of realistic alternatives. A fair process must assess those differences rather than treat every case as identical.

A Public Relocation Plan Is Needed

Before enforcement is contemplated, the Ministry should publish a clear relocation framework covering the affected communities. At a minimum, it should state:

⇒ The number of households—not merely structures or occupants—identified for relocation in each area.

⇒ The precise basis for determining that an area cannot be regularised.

⇒ The locations proposed for relocation and the distance from residents’ present communities.

⇒ Whether relocation sites have roads, drainage, potable water, electricity, internet access, public transport, schools, health services and policing.

⇒ The criteria for eligibility, including the treatment of low-income families, elderly residents, persons with disabilities, women-headed households and families with school-age children.

⇒ Whether families will receive serviced house lots, completed homes, rental support, moving assistance or other transitional help.

⇒ The timeline for relocation, consultation and the provision of infrastructure.

⇒ A transparent appeal or review mechanism for persons who believe they were wrongly classified or inadequately accommodated.

It is not enough to tell residents to “put your house in order” and apply like everyone else if the relocation process itself may leave them without a viable place to live. A pending application alone does not solve the immediate consequences of displacement.

Nor should relocation become a route to sending low-income families to distant, poorly serviced lands simply because those areas are available. Relocation must be to developed or demonstrably developing communities, not to bush lots, flood-prone tracts or places where residents are effectively cut off from work, schools and essential services.

Compassion Must Be Practical

The Minister is right that Government has an obligation to enforce the law and protect reserves, drainage corridors, riverbanks and coastal infrastructure. But enforcement without a credible, adequately serviced alternative risks creating a cycle in which displaced families simply seek another unauthorised place to live.

That outcome would serve no one—not the families, not formal housing applicants, not nearby communities and not the State.

The Government deserves credit for acknowledging the scale of the issue, conducting regularisation exercises where appropriate, and recording those who will need to move. The next measure of success, however, will be whether every relocation is supported by land, infrastructure, accessibility and genuine consultation.

People should not be left to choose between living illegally in an unsafe place and accepting a distant plot that dismantles the lives they have painstakingly built. If relocation is necessary, it must be planned as a transition to dignity—not administered as a punishment for poverty.