Partnership

I attended the Sign Language Training Course jointly organised by MBPJ and the Lions Club District 308B1 on Saturday morning. The course aimed at teaching participants the right way to communicate with deaf people. More than often misunderstanding occurred between the able and disabled people due to the problem of communication. While many have taken for granted that deaf people should be able to "read" what the able person is talking about, it is actually turned out to be "no reading". So, the course is timely and essential especially for the front line people in dealing with deaf people. The organising also saw the partnership between government body and NGO for promoting good cause. I believe, partnership likes this is very much lacking at the moment. Pooling and sharing resources through mutual understanding and cooperation is of great help to inculcate greater result and impact. It is unnecessary to work thing out individually especially if we are talking about targeting the same beneficiaries. often different groups cannot work things out simply because of organisational egoism.

So, get rid of egoism for greater impact should be the first step forward for true partnership.

LA21=1+1+1

I was invited to share my thoughts with stakeholders from Klang on 1st December 2010 regarding the above topic. I am preparing my presentation now. We always talk about 1+1 in referring to the instant coffee bag mixed with either sugar or milk or sometime the ingredients for some household care products.


So, what is 1+1+1 then? My immediate response is to refer to the tripartite partnership between government, community and business or the 3 dimensions of development, namely economy, social and environment. The discourse should have lead the participants to refresh on ways to achieve sustainable development at local level.


Stakeholder partnership and participation is important as without a true collaboration, the planned actions cannot be implemented at all. It is always mistakenly that whatever discussed and agreed upon by all stakeholders will be carried out by the local authority. It is the synptom of "I am telling what should you do" and "Please do it as what we have agreed" and "We are CBO and hence no capacity to do it" and "Please provide me this and that for me to do it". Real spirit of partnership and participation means pooling in and sharing of resources for actions be done. It is a concept of everyone does things that he is good at and collectively to achieve the results, and hence the glory of achieving it. Having said this, I observed that many do not realise the beauty of partnership. Sometime although it is intended of doing things under partnership spirit, it turned out to be another one sided event or equality in partnership was not significant. So 1+1+1 in partnership becomes a big challenge to realise.

Balancing and integrating 3 different dimensions for development is critical and important. Any action will have impacts on different dimensions of development too. Thereby, consider other dimensions when a specific programmes is carried out becomes another big challenge. Presently the structure of mechanisme, governance system and mind set of stakeholders are very segmented and tend to confined to every one's own cocoon. We are not very comfortable to step out from our comfort zone and make changes or step into other territories that we might not familiar with. For example, to ask the businesses to consider environmental conservation as art of their company mission. Similarly to ask NGO to take profit as one of the bottom line in achieving effectiveness of programmes. Likewise asking the Government to account public environmental cost in approving a project. Obviously, we have not crossed the line of integrating these dimensions as ONE. Many time, we provide something with noble objective without realising that this might have affected other dimension. For example, to enhance greater interaction between society and public sector, a big gathering serving plenty of food is held. It is nothing wrong perhaps, becomes an issues only if food wastage is there and unfriendly kitchen utensils are used. Unfortunately it happens almost everyday. So 1+1+1 in the sense of developmental dimension refers to detail and holistic planning to integrate different dimension so that the meaning of sustainable development is realised.

It is easy said than done as nobody would like to step into other unfamiliar territories. However, for the way forwards and the sake of sustainable development or LA21, it is essential and important.

Maximum or Optimum of Development?

When it comes to intensity control of development, some planning authorities allow permissible plot ratio and maximum plot ratio as control measure. It simply means permissible plot ratio is the right entitlement for project proponents to develop their land based on what can be allowed by complying with the set guidelines. Whereas the maximum plot ratio is only allowed if the project proponents have proposed extra measures to qualify them for the extra bonus plot ratio. These include measures to improve public accessibility and connectivity, public enjoyment and comfortably, surrounding area's enhancement of environmental quality or any other matters that will benefit the public at large. In other words, it is not automatically granted and should not be construed as "by right I should have". I think when the planning authority comes out with this system, it is with the purpose of encouraging more CSR gesture from the project proponents and to compensate them for doing good to the environment and community. More importantly, it is stated clearly and transparent in the gazette development plan. The argument of I do not know such incentive or the notion of "if you do not allow me for the maximum plot ratio, then you are depriving the development process or no investor will want to come to your city", to me is unacceptable.

However, if the argument is the plot ratio provided is too low compared to the cost of investment, then the planning authority should have done a review on the plot ratio so that it is at par with the capacity of infrastructure and also the aspiration of the city. The saying that "it is not fair to deprive me to entitle for the maximum..." is an under statement itself, i think. What the planning authorities ask is for the project proponents to justify why should you be entitled for the maximum plot ratio and to me if you have contributed towards that entitltement, then it is nothing wrong or shame to request for.

Parking

I was made to understand that providing a car park lot in a complex will require 350 sq. ft of space. This includes the turning and passage for the car movement. No wonder when the Petaling Jaya City Council increased the requirement for car parking provision on condominium from 2 lot per unit plus 20% for visitor to 2.5 lot per unit plus 30% for visitor, the project proponents objected strongly to the requirement. This means from ratio of 2.4 lot to 2.75 lot, an increment of 0.35 lot per unit of dwelling. They explained that development cost will increase and finally the house purchasers will be paying extra.

The Council has proposed the changes due to heavy traffic congestion along the main road adjacent to condominium area due to insufficient of car parking provision in the condominium compound. It is also known that average car ownership in PJ has reached 2.4 cars per household. The trend is anticipated increasing with affluent society of PJ and inefficiency of public transportation network and infrastructure. People even those who cannot afford or those who prefer to take public transport, have no choice but rely on own transport for commuting. Hence, the request for car parking facilities.

So, what is the solution then? To request the project proponents to provide less car parks but without immediate solution or asking them to provide more car parks that cost will be absorbed by the house buyers? I presume sufficient car parking facilities is required as providing a solution to traffic management is critically needed. However, the requirement should also look into locality and other criteria. For example, if a TOD development is proposed, then less car parking should be required. Perhaps for the development site near to public transportation hub or park and ride facilities, the requirement should be reduced and incentives should be given if the project proponents contribute towards building the facilities.

City of all ages

City of the aged versus city of all ages is vast different. While City of the aged means a city comprising people with old aged, city of all ages is talking about inclusiveness. City of the aged is moving towards maturity in productivity and aging infrastructure in which regeneration and revival is required. For example, urban renewal to bring back new and energetic life to the city centre due to aging society, insufficient of infrastructure and dilapidated facilities. This is critical to not let a city dead due to out migration. City of all ages is talking about preparing facilities for people from different age group. It is a place for everyone to claim ownership and to have sense of belonging.

Each city will come to aging and need revitalisation for not becoming irrelevant and marginalise from the main stream of development. In so doing, we are talking about creating inclusiveness for all, and this is city of all ages. City of all ages is more dynamic, energetic and adaptability because it is able to cater to the need of different group of people. In reciprocal, it can also benefit from the contribution of different ages group. While senior people will come with abundance of experiences and wisdom, the youth will be productive enough to push for economic development.

Innovation and Changes

Innovation comes with a price. Designers are innovative of creating design that will optimise the resources and enhance the quality. In many occasion creativity involves changes to the existing guidelines and requirement. Not many people like to see changes as it will contradict to the norm in which nobody dares to take the risk and responsibility if something bad eventually happens. Thereby, everybody is so comfortable with the existing situation and do not like to make or even to suggest changes. Sometime people who make the suggestion will be asked to do it or worst be reprimanded for opening his/her mouth. If an organisation contemplates with current situation, then creativity and innovative ideas will not be entertained.

Last week I encountered this on two different occasions. The first one was during an NGO meeting in which I suggested that a permanent secretariat with defined roles and sufficient capacity should be established so that administration of the association can be improved. All presence agreed with the suggestion and I was asked to prepare a paper within 3 months.

The second one was a building plan submission for a bungalow house. The applicant in responding to the call for more greenery and sustainable home has suggested to convert the rooftop of car porch into a landscape garden. However, the car porch is built until the boundary line. According to the current building practice, set back of any structure from the boundary line is required. Building set back is required for uniformity, safety and clearance of sight. Greenery is required for having a better quality of living environment. While the proposal will not jeopardise the requirement for set back, more greenery is created.

So, when it comes to deciding which should prevail, what do we prefer? Setback without much impact on surrounding or more greenery with great impact on sustainable environment? You guess is as good as mine. It is matter of are you a change person or a person waiting to be changed.

Community consultation

Community consultation is embedded in the democracy process of any governance system for engaging the people in the planning and decision making process. It is important for listening and incorporating the views of grass root people as they are the intended beneficiaries as well as the people who will receive negative impact from any decision made. For example, the property assessment rate, the approval of development project and traffic diversion scheme. Although some might of view that inviting the participation of people from diverse background with different agenda, personal or public will prolong the process of development, it is better of doing so for fear of delay and unrest later. Having said this, a threshold of engaging people must be set up and agreed upon first so that discussion, if any will not be delayed. People need to agree to disagree. Sometime although a meeting has come to a consensus of decision, minority of the people who are objecting to the decision might still voiced out their differences openly and strongly. This is not acceptable and defeat the purpose of having community consultation.

Another interesting thing of community consultation is we are always starting with problem rather than solution. We engage people for discussing a problem and trying to find out an amicable solution. In other words, consultation has always been done due to the presence of a problem and we will not organise any session if such issues are not happened. From the community development point of view, this is not positive simply because it will not enhance the relationship for all. People will have the perception that we are needed only if you need our support for some agenda of development. This might be the root cause of community confrontation.

If we have from time to time to organise community consultation over solution rather than problem, then I presume many of the potential issues can be solved even before these issues evolved. For example, discussion on how to make a safer neighbourhood can lead to the implementation of Safe City Programme or even Traffic Calming Scheme. Thereby, strategic long term community plan is required to gauge the opinion and vision of every residents in a neighbourhood first. The Plan shall be guiding the development of the neighbourhood. Similarly the Strategic Plan of local council should be involving the stakeholders and getting their endorsement. For example, communicating the time frame of property assessment rate review to residents in which everyone will know when a review is expected.

Having said this, more than often session to discuss solution cannot attract participation due to public apathy and people simply do not care about what you are planning if the proposal does not affect them directly. For instance, I will complain actively if you are building a community hall in front of my house but doing nothing or even welcome the proposal if it is built far from my house. This syndrome as some interpreted it showing the selfishness of people. Similarly, the talking of "I pay assessment annually for you to collect the rubbish from my house, so you better clear all rubbish from within my house compound". People have never thought about reducing the rubbish generation is their responsibility as well. By reducing rubbish individually, collectively we can minimise the cost of managing the rubbish, and of course protecting our environment.

Community consultation is a must, but to shift from discussing problem first to the solution will require awareness and capacity improvement of the people, more importantly behavioural change.

Environmental Investment is Luxury

I have a discussion with Mr Anthony Tan, the Executive Director of CETDEM last week about the prospect of sustainable home in Malaysia. We, both agreed that it is the only way forward and brighter the prospect if few conditions are in place. For example, economic incentives such as tax rebate are provided by the Government, voluntarism of individual with enhanced capacity in environmental education and stricter enforcement. However, top of all is the awareness and passion of the people.

No point of providing incentives to people for installing solar panel for Renewable Energy, providing 3 colour bin for them to carry out recycling, providing free water supply, building community centre for greater interaction if the people are not appreciating these or worse do not understand and see the need for doing so. It will definitely not sustainable.

People has always linked return of investment to the environmental protection measures. They always talk about value for money in purchasing energy saving accredited refrigerator and light pulps, saving of electricity bill in installing the solar heater and energy saver, buying the hybrid car for saving fuel and etc. Nothing wrong with this as many of us are cost conscious.

What I really do not understand is people would make renovation work to the back potion of their new house immediately after handing over of key and without asking what is the return of investment. Similarly, we will buy a LCD TV without asking the return of value except with the satisfaction level on quality of visual impact. But, when it comes to environmental protection equipment, we start asking the ROI. Perhaps I presume, people do not understand the need of doing so to the mother earth and hence are not forceful of doing so.

In the long term, perhaps for green movement to filter down to the grassroots level and make it a "basic need" for quality and sustainable lifestyle, we should try to raise awareness of the people first on such necessary expenses.

Entrepreneur-Based Residents Organisations

I have the opportunity to visit 13 neighbourhood in Petaling Jaya over the last two weekend. I saw vast disparity between different neighbourhood area and their residents organisation. Differences on the understanding about meaning of sustainable development, the role of residents organisation and local authority, the administration and management of society, the true sense of partnership and engagement as well as resources planning.

While some organisations have shown their maturity and professionalism in handling the affair of organisation, others need further improvement on knowledge and skill. Some use LCD projector to brief us on their achievement for sustainability, some are still relying on oral presentation. Similarly, some neighbourhood saw big improvement on socio-economic and environmental activities, many are still struggling to improve on civic mindedness and basic cleanliness. I presume this is normal urban phenomenon with residents having different expectation gap, social status and income level.

Having said this, one of the common understanding amongst the neighbourhood is to attend to challenges facing them the most. Some area have identified security and crime as top priority while some area have prioritised social integration as major concern or provision of basic urban services as top of their list. This shows competency in identifying and planning community issue-based analysis, a pre-requisite for Local Agenda 21 Action Planning. The issues will then become basis for strategic actions formulation.

Residents organisations carried out activities tailored to their local need, and rightly so. Although different residents organisation with their own nature of community profile might have thought certain activities are not relevant or important, I am of the opinion that many are actually applicable to all locality with some minor adjustment. For example, in neighbourhood area with strong bonding and closer relationship amongst residents, self-help programme offering micro financial or kind assistance was established. The assistance is provided for the purpose of disaster remedies, new born, wedding, education, welfare or funeral service. While neighbourhood area with well to do residents might not have thought the necessity of having similar fund, the concept of self-help should be adopted for other activities such as for the neighbourhood watch, social gathering, maintaining the green and etc.

With the disparity in organising activities at local level, I think MBPJ as the prime mover of local sustainability should organise capacity building programmes for the organisations. It is of use to share with them the knowledge and skill of running and managing an organisation or programmes. Although the organisations are voluntary base, managing of it with social approach is no more sufficient. Management, marketing and planning of the organisation and its programmes have to be done professionally.

This explain why many social organisations adopting the concept of social entrepreneurship are performing better. For sustainability sake, voluntary-based residents organisations in Petaling Jaya have no choice, but evolve to the entrepreneur-based local social organisations.

Appropriate Approach for Sustainable Development

Encouraging sustainable development can be done through either punitive or incentive measurement. We can either reward someone for doing good or penalise someone for not doing anything or doing wrong.

Recently I acknowledged a different approach by two local banks in encouraging card holders to go for e-statement. Both rationalise the action for environmental conservation purpose. While one bank encourages the card holder to switch to e-statement by giving bonus point, another bank charges card holder RM5 each month for not doing so. The former means no reward for you of not doing anything but also no penalty imposed on you. I think this is right way of doing so as environmental concern is very much a passion at the moment in which individual can choose to do so or not, but more importantly an agreement was signed during the signing up of card in which a monthly statement will be issued. The latter imposing penalty has gone against the mutual agreement and also restricting the choice of card holder. Although it was argued that drastic action is needed to compel card holder to switch to e-statement, the penalty has actually made people think other wise. General public is of opinion that the bank is shortchanging his customers and at the same time making money through saving of printing and postal.

It illustrates that although motive is good, the process is questionable in which ultimate objective will be hard to achieve as stakeholders will not buy in the idea. Thereby, implementing sustainable development will have to look into appropriate context, content and process or else it is tantamount to plan for failure.

Low Carbon Township Planning

I am preparing a paper entitled Low Carbon City Planning - Public Participation. Well, this is topic of the day since our honorable Prime Minister has committed to cut 40% of carbon emission by year 2020. Everyone from all sectors are trying to explore the possibility of contributing to this target. No exception for the housing and property sector. The players are talking about designing and constructing Low Carbon Township. The architect and engineer have taken the lead in introducing and promoting green building index. The Government is offering tax incentive for capital expenditure on the construction of green building. The planner is helping the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water to prepare a framework tool for assessing the sustainable township. The building material manufacturers are doing their best in producing sustainable building material. The list can go on as it is the emerging business opportunities for everyone.


Having said this, I notice incompleteness of the movement. Everyone is talking about providing hard landscape for creating a low carbon township but the views of users have been neglected. The house buyer will be the one enjoying the facilities and at the same time decide what and how to use it. One of the common disturbance is renovation works on the back portion house will begin once a house has been completed. Work to knock down the wall, shift the toilet further back and remove the pipe of wash basin from sewerage connection to direct discharge to the back drain. This is not only a waste of money, but also wasteful of resources. It will be nice if the desire of buyers has been incorporated during the design stage.

Green infrastructure such as common utility tunnel providing space for all utilities avoiding digging of road, construction of recycling centre encouraging 3R practise and installing rain water harvesting tank with the landscaping features and others will help in sustaining low carbon lifestyle in future. People of present day are the lazy lot in which anything providing convenience and time saving will invite participation and acceptance. So, low carbon also means providing accessibility with low cost in speedy manner.

Low carbon township planning is way forward, but the success of it and sustainability is relied on the buyers, residents and local authority. Without sustainable maintenance and lifestyle, it might be another elephant project in the making.

Pedestrian Friendly City

I facilitated a group discussion last week on making Kuala Lumpur a pedestrian friendly city. It is indeed a difficult task of putting pedestrian first rather than the motorist. In Malaysia, many road circulation planning has been done to serve the motor vehicles. None of the planning has started with the people walking behaviour at the centric of development. The planners and engineers has always drew the line of roads starting from major highway to the local collector road, and lastly the pedestrian walkway at the side table of the road reserve.

For planning a pedestrian friendly city, the current practice has to be changed. It must be a bold step of identifying the pedestrian walking behaviour between major focus points first and followed by other traffic infrastructure provision.

Talking about human behaviour, many would like to shorten the distance of walking between the origin and destination, walk under a safer, comfortable, undisturbed and conducive environment. Nobody like to walk under the hot sun. Equally nobody want to be alert attentively for fearing to be robbed. More importantly pedestrian would like to be well respected by other users of the road.

Walking by far is affordable by everyone regardless of their social status and wealth. It is not going to cost any single cent for walking compared to other mode of transportation. Thereby, walking is becoming a basic human right to be enjoyed by all. Providing a conducive, safe, well connected and accessible walkway is essential and critical.

Thereby the discussion summarised that for making Kuala Lumpur a pedestrian friendly city, approaches and mind set of planners and decision makers have to be revamped first in which People ahead of motorist is required.