Group Discussion

I was invited to moderate group discussion on formulating the Local Agenda 21 Klang Action Plan last Saturday. It was a refreshing experience for me since last April after my new posting. I saw the enthusiasm of participants in drawing out their plan for implementation. At the initial stage, everyone started talking about what they felt important and critical issues for tackling. Many have related the issues to their own encountering and life experience. To me, it is fine as our active participation in the urban planning process is very much associated to how thing can be resolved and benefited us. However, if we have a strong character in the group for which his idea has been imposed on others by default, then it might become a problem for subsequent steps. For example, If my idea is not accepted not because it is no good but rather because I cannot put my message across due to my own weaknesses in communicating, then the method of discussion and consensus building must be changed.

Realising this worry, I started asking every individual to write down 2 major issues that they think are critical and worth for action taken. I told them to relate to their own daily encountering or the objectives of the organisation they represented or the experience and knowledge they have. From a total of 11 participants, 22 issues were put forth and out of that total, 7 shared the common issue on rubbish and 4 on the security concern. Based on the number, the group discussed again on the common issue for solution. They acknowledged that rubbish is the major issue in Klang and need urgent action. They also acknowledged that other 5 groups are most likely will take rubbish as the common issue and as such have selected security as the issue for action planning.

I guided them through for searching the real causes and effects of security. At first, their concern of security is very superficial and tend to be straight forward. For example, the crime rate is high in an area because the presence of workers and absence of enforcers. However, after running through with them the technique of Problem Trees for cause and effect analysis, they realised that they together with other stakeholders shared the same responsibilities, and of course blame for letting the security problem getting worse as perceived.

They have finally come to conclusion that they are talking about the Safe City Programme as they were told before but have no idea on how to be involved and implemented at the level of neighbourhood and city. At the end, I presume they started thinking and refreshed on how they can play an active role in ensuring a safe city and neighbourhood.

Group discussion for action planning process is worthwhile for consideration. For that to happen, every participants must be given a fair and equal chance to participate.