BOOK REVIEW….AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS - WELLBEING AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT by Philip Booth

Philip Booth is Editorial and Program Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs and Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School, City University. He has written extensively on regulation, social insurance and Catholic social teaching. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and of the Royal Statistical Society and associate editor of Actuarial Annals and the British Actuarial Journal. He has also advised the Bank of England on financial stability issues (1998–2002) and has been a visiting Fellow at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University (2010/11). The idea put forward by the British government that economists and politicians pursue policies directed towards maximising GDP is a ‘straw man’. Government has always had a multitude of different objectives and government policy would be very different today if economic growth were the single priority. 

1.   In spite of general reductions in government spending, the prime minister has found room in the government’s budget to spend money on a major survey of what makes the British people happy. This will be used, in the prime minister’s own words, to guide government policy towards improvements in general wellbeing rather than improvements in national income.

2.         However, it is it really true that government policy has always been orientated towards maximising GDP? Is it true that wellbeing does not increase as income increases? Is it true that more equal societies are happier societies? Can we really improve wellbeing through workplace legislation? Is it right to orientate government policy towards the single aim of increasing aggregate wellbeing across society as a whole?

3.          These questions and many more are tackled by some of the leading intellectuals in the field. Overall, this monograph provides a substantial challenge to those who want to put the explicit pursuit of wellbeing at the heart of government policy.

4.         Explicit attempts by government to control GDP, or rapidly increase GDP growth, have normally failed. Such a target driven mentality is part of the conceit of central planning. Attempts to centrally direct policy towards improving general wellbeing will also fail.

5.         Contrary to popular perception, new statistical work suggests that happiness is related to income. This relationship holds between countries, within countries and over time. The relationship is robust and also holds at higher levels of income as well as at lower levels of income. This calls into question the assertion that people are on a ‘hedonic treadmill’ that prevents them becoming happier as their income rises beyond a certain level of income.

6.         This new work, using a data set of 126 countries, shows that the correlation between life satisfaction and the log of permanent income within a given country lies between 0.3 and 0.5. There is a similar correlation between growth in life satisfaction and growth in income.

7.         There is no evidence that equality is related to happiness. Indeed, the proponents of greater income equality admit that they are unable to cite such evidence and instead rely on very unsatisfactory forms of indirect inference. The clearest determinants of wellbeing would seem to be employment, marriage, religious belief and avoiding poverty. None of these is obviously correlated with income equality.

8.         The government is under pressure to bring in further legislation to promote ‘wellbeing at work’. This includes, for example, legislation on parental leave. The theoretical and empirical case for such legislation is weak.

9.         There is no relationship between objective measures of wellbeing at work and the extent of employment protection legislation, unionisation, and so on. Given the relationship between wellbeing and employment, any form of employment protection legislation that led to more temporary employment or reduced employment would be detrimental to wellbeing.

10.     A comparison across 74 countries finds that government final consumption negatively affects happiness levels and that the negative influence occurs regardless of how effective government bureaucracy is or how democratic the country is. Increasing government spending by about a third would cause a direct reduction in happiness of about 5 to 6 per cent. Centralising government decision-making is likely to lead to more intrusive government and lower wellbeing.

11.     If people wish to maximise their wellbeing and are the best judges of their own wellbeing they will take decisions about how to use their economic resources to pursue their own goals. We should allow people’s preferences for wellbeing to be revealed by their own actions rather than through surveys of what people say they prefer.

12.     Happiness measures are short-term, transient and shallow measures of people’s genuine wellbeing.

13.     Those who wish to use happiness economics in public policy have no effective way of determining whether an increase in wellbeing should be traded against justice, moral values or a decrease in freedom. It is a utilitarian philosophy which applies a principle that many might use in their own lives to the organisation of society as a whole. Applying such an overarching principle to the organisation of society as a whole is very dangerous.

14.     In conclusion, it is to be hoped that, when the Office for National Statistics concludes its studies, it will set great store by Bjørnskov’s empirical conclusions – backed up in less direct ways by the authors of other chapters in this monograph. Countries that inhibit the freedom of their citizens to a lesser degree have happier citizens. Paradoxically, therefore, wellbeing may be maximised if the government does not consciously try to pursue that objective specifically.

15.     This should not be surprising. The wellbeing policy activists accuse economists of focusing too much on the maximisation of national income as a government policy objective. This is a false accusation, but a lesson can be drawn from attempts by government to increase national income.

16.     It also happens to be the case that economic growth is higher when governments do not specifically plan for that end. In other words, the central planning of a society to achieve a particular desired end is likely to fail to meet that end, as well as changing completely the nature of the society.

17.     This is not to say that some useful policy advice cannot be found from the empirical work on happiness economics. It can tell us, for example – though we probably knew already – that policies that impede employment seriously affect wellbeing. Those authors whose chapters deal with the normative issues, however, make a very strong case in this monograph that government policy should not promote wellbeing explicitly.

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS: WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NEED TO KNOW?

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS : MURNInets

MALAYSIA : 3rd UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HABITAT III)

INTRODUCTION

“Habitat III” is shorthand for a major global summit, formally known as the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, to be held in Quito, Ecuador, on 17-20 October 2016. Habitat III will be one of the first world summit of the United Nations after the adoption of the Agenda 2030 and the agreement on climate change COP21 in Paris. The United Nations has called the conference, the third in a series that began in 1976, to “reinvigorate” the global political commitment to the sustainable development of towns, cities and other human settlements, both rural and urban. The product of that re-invigoration, along with pledges and new obligations, is being referred to as the New Urban Agenda. That agenda will set a new global strategy around urbanization for the next two decades.The conference will be the first time in 20 years that the international community, led by national governments, has collectively taken stock of fast-changing urban trends and the ways in which these patterns are impacting on human development, environmental well-being, and civic and governance systems worldwide.

In 17-20 October 2016 Habitat III will bring together global actors in Quito, Ecuador after 20 years to build on the work of Habitat II in Istanbul in 1996 and Habitat I in Vancouver in 1976. The stated aim of Habitat III is to adopt a “New Urban Agenda”, meant to guide the actions of national governments in pursuit of more sustainable urbanisation. The new agenda is meant to draw from reports prepared at national and regional levels that outline the major urban challenges for those countries and regions, along with visions to be incorporated into said agenda. A key challenge that emerges is how Habitat III may build upon Habitat II commitments. In the Habitat II Agenda adopted in 1996, Heads of State and Government committed themselves to two main goals;

a.    Adequate Shelter for All; and

b.    Sustainable Human Settlements in an Urbanizing World

The United Nations General Assembly, in Resolution 67/216, decided to establish a preparatory committee to carry out the preparations for the conference open to all Member States of the United Nations and members of specialized agencies and of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The Preparatory Committee (PrepCom), following the same resolution, will have three meetings before the opening of the conference. Indonesia will host the 3rd PrepCom, in 25-27 July 2016, a responsibility that puts the country at the forefront of engaged member states. In that respect, the General Assembly reiterated its appreciation to the Government of Ecuador for the offer to host the Conference and its gratitude to the Government of Indonesia for its offer to convene the Habitat III PrepCom3. It also expresses appreciation to the Government of Malaysia and the city of Kuala Lumpur for their proposal to host the ninth session of the World Urban Forum.

HABITAT III

The World Urban Forum is considered to be the foremost arena for interaction between different groups of stakeholders. The World Urban Forum in 2018 will be the first one to focus on the implementation for the New Urban Agenda. In the words of the Secretary-General of the Habitat III Conference, Dr Joan Clos, the text is a historic agreement of Member States towards more inclusive and participatory decisions within the United Nations system, as well as a true sign of the sense of responsibility in advancing decisions on outstanding issues for a successful, meaningful and action-oriented Habitat III Conference.  Dialogue among local authorities, stakeholders and national governments is the guarantee of an implementable New Urban Agenda.The Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations in New York had made the inquiries pertaining to this matter and was informed that the submission of the report is not compulsory for all member states.

However, Habitat III Secretariat will continue to receive the National Reports until the Habitat III Conference in October 2016. Member states are also encourage to finalize and submit the report before the holding of the Third Preparatory Committee meeting that will take place in Surabaya, Indonesia on 25-27 July 2016. On this note, given that we have 7-8 months until October, it is more than enough time to prepare such report.  The Ministry would highly encourage Malaysia to submit the report as this would show the seriousness of our commitment to the WUF9 that would be held in KL in 2018.  The preparation of the national report would also provide a good opportunity for KPKT to enhance coordination with agencies/ministries on urban issues. Habitat III will also offer a potent opportunity for the international community at all levels to harmonize its understanding of the problems and opportunities posed by current trends in urbanization. This includes poverty, quality of life, environmental degradation, climate change and other concerns on the one hand, as well as the economic, social and creative boons provided by cities on the other.

Global actors will be able to use the run-up to Habitat III to work toward agreement on a broad and collective approach to start to both address and capitalize on these issues. A significant part of the potential opportunity comes exactly from this breadth of discussion.  At the table in making this decision will be the nearly 200 national governments that make up the U. N. General Assembly. Yet they will be buttressed by a broad variety of crucial actors, including cities, the private sector and civil society. Still, the exact roles of these latter entities remain tenuous. While they will be able to offer formal recommendations, officially they are considered mere observers to the process. Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government (KPKT), in coordination with Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia (JPBD), and other federal agencies, are leading Malaysia efforts to support Habitat III.

MALAYSIA AND HABITAT III

This year KPKT will be held the first convening of the Malaysia Habitat III National Committee. The committee, chaired by Secretary General of KPKT, includes a diverse representing other federal government agencies, regional and local officials, academia, philanthropy, and civil society. KPKT’s goal is to facilitate a dynamic and inclusive Habitat III preparatory process that engages the National Committee and other partners in an open dialogue and partner-led activities designed to:

a.    Promote open and productive dialogue on key challenges facing Malaysia cities and regions, and discuss opportunities to improve quality of life, sustainability, inclusivity, access to opportunity, and resilience efforts;

b.    Raise public awareness and engage local communities on housing, planning, and community development issues in Malaysia; and

c.    Uplift best practices and innovations emerging from rural, suburban, and urban communities across Malaysia.

UN-Habitat’s work and relationships with its partners are periodically examined in detail by the Governing Council, which is subsidiary to the UN General Assembly and serves as the intergovernmental decision-making body of UN-Habitat. It reports to the General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council, and its main functions are as follows:

a.    Setting UN-Habitat’s policies by developing and promoting policy objectives, priorities, and guidelines regarding existing and planned programs of work in the field of human settlements;

b.    Overseeing working relations with partners by closely following the activities of United Nations agencies and other international organizations in the field of human settlements, and proposing ways through which the overall human settlements policy objectives within the UN system might best be achieved;

c.    Approving UN- Habitat’s biennial work program and budget;

Member states The Governing Council meets every 2 years and is composed of 58 member states, which represent 5 regional groups. Member states are elected by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) for a period of four years. Membership of the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme as from 1 January 2015. Total number of members: 58. Malaysia representative by Minister of KPKT  who  as appointed as a member of UN-Habitat Governing Council in 2 Feb 2016.Under resolution 24/14 of the UN-Habitat Governing Council titled “Inputs for and support to the preparatory process of the Habitat III, adopted at its 24th session, by which the Council invited Member States to prepare:

“before the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee for Habitat III, to be held in New York during the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, national reports which consider the implementation of the Habitat II agenda and of other relevant internationally agreed goals and targets, as well as new challenges, emerging trends and a prospective vision for sustainable human settlements and urban development, as a basis for the formulation of a “New Urban Agenda”, in line with paragraph 6 of General Assembly resolution 67/216” (paragraph 40)”

The National report structure outline describe what and how our  government, Local Authorities (including the capital or major city) and other sub-national governmental authorities, in partnership with stakeholders, have achieved, through the Habitat Agenda. This report also  describe the challenges experienced and lessons learnt in these areas, as well as future challenges and issues that could be addressed through a New Urban Agenda. Chapters will be included  in the report are :

a.    Chapter 1: Urban Demographic Issues

b.    Chapter 2: Land and Urban Planning

c.    Chapter 3: Environment and Urbanization

d.    Chapter 4: Urban Governance and Legislation

e.    Chapter 5: Urban Economy

f.     Chapter 6: Housing and Basic Services

g.    Chapter 7: Indicators

h.    Chapter 8: Case Studies and Policy Documents

CONCLUSION

Malaysia places a high priority on the development of more sustainable and inclusive communities due to our contribution to strengthen the economy, creating good jobs, using energy more efficiently, protecting the natural environment and human health. Through these efforts, Malaysia affirms that the components necessary to ensure the urban future include public-private partnerships, cross-agency and international collaboration, and improved networks across sectors that can help cities mobilize financial and other support for sustainable urban development. Malaysia is committed to participate in HABITAT III in order to demonstrate the benefits of a sustainable economic pathway for rapidly urbanizing communities.

United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development

[DEATH OF DISTANCE + SPATIAL ECONOMIC] x COMPACT CITY - URBAN SPRAWL = SMART CITY ~ SUSTAINABLE CITY

DEATH OF DISTANCE

The communications revolution will have overwhelming and generally benign effects on how businesses function, governments rule, and individuals live their lives. Firms will respond more quickly to market cues, citizens will understand governments better, children will know more about foreign lands. Philosophers and anthropologists may wince in disgust, but it is a faith common among the cyber-elite. The notion of the “death of distance” has gained traction, both in the work of academics but more especially in the popular image of globalisation. Citing radical improvements in the cost and efficacy of long-distance communication and transportation, Cairncross depicts a world marked by the free movement of goods, people, and ideas. Unfortunately, this prognosis has been difficult to identify in present-day trade data. One of the first studies to recognise this was  Leamer and Levinsohn (1995), who write “that the effect of distance on trade patterns is not diminishing over time. Contrary to popular impression, the world is not getting dramatically smaller”.

Taking this view as a starting point, a string of papers has strongly confirmed their initial results. Berthelon and Freund (2008) find corroborating evidence in highly disaggregated trade data. Their main findings are that changes in the composition of trade cannot account for the time-invariant coefficients on distance emerging from gravity equations and that trade in homogeneous products has tended to become more sensitive to distance.

Adding support to this view, Carrère and Schiff (2005) argue that the importance of distance in trade has been on the march in recent times. They make this claim on the basis of a trade-weighted measure of the distance separating trade partners (or distance-of-trade) which has been falling from the 1960s. Additionally, this declining distance-of-trade is observed in the majority of nations, suggesting that the result is not driven by distinctions in the trading relations of rich versus poor countries. Finally, Disdier and Head (2008) collect over 1000 distance coefficients estimated from gravity equations in 78 previous studies and perform a meta-analysis. They find that the estimated distance coefficient has been on the rise from 1950, suggesting that the “death of distance” has been greatly exaggerated.

SPATIAL ECONOMIC

Since 1990 there has been a renaissance of theoretical and empirical work on the spatial aspects of the economy -- that is, where economic activity occurs and why. Using new tools -- in particular, modeling techniques developed to analyse industrial organization, international trade, and economic growth -- this "new economic geography" has emerged as one of the most exciting areas of contemporary economics. Producers and buyers are dispersed in space, and overcoming the distances between them can be costly. Much commercial activity is concerned with “space bridging,” and much ENTREPRENEURSHIP is aimed at making good use of locational opportunities and cutting the costs of transport and communication. Spatial economics is the study of how space (distance) affects economic behaviour. Spatial economic show how a common approach that emphasizes the three-way interaction among increasing returns, transportation costs, and the movement of productive factors can be applied to a wide range of issues in urban, regional, and international economics. This book is the first to provide a sound and unified explanation of the existence of large economic agglomerations at various spatial scales.

URBAN SPRAWL

The issue of urban sprawl, evaluating the claim that the spatial growth of cities is excessive. It has been shown that urban spatial expansion is mainly due to three powerful forces: expansion of urban population, rising incomes, and falling commuting costs. It has been argued that urban growth occurring purely in response to these forces cannot be faulted as socially undesirable. The reason is that the resulting spatial expansion is the outcome of a fair competition for land between real estate developers and agricultural users, whose bids reflect the social value of what they produce. The discussion, however, identifies three market failures that may distort the operation of the fundamental forces, upsetting the allocation of land between agricultural and urban uses and justifying criticism of urban sprawl.

These are failure of market transactions to account for the benefits of open space, excessive commuting because of a failure to account for the social costs of congestion, and failure of local governments to make new development pay for the infrastructure costs it generates. Precise remedies for these market failures are identified, which consist of two types of development taxes along with congestion tolls levied on commuters. Each of these remedies leads to a reduction in the spatial size of the city. When crafting policies to address sprawl, policymakers must recognize that the potential market failures involved in urban expansion are of secondary importance compared to the powerful, fundamental forces that underlie this expansion.

For example, while the failure to fully charge for infrastructure costs may impart a slight upward bias to urban expansion, the bulk of the substantial spatial growth that has occurred across the U.S. cannot be ascribed to such a cause. Instead, this growth mostly reflects fundamentals such as the nation’s growing population and the higher incomes of its citizens. Because of the secondary role of market failure, a draconian attack on urban sprawl is probably not warranted. By greatly restricting urban expansion, such an attack might needlessly limit the consumption of housing space, depressing the standard of living of American consumers. Instead, a more cautious approach, which recognizes the damage done by unwarranted restriction of urban growth, should be adopted.

COMPACT CITY

There is a widespread consensus that progress towards sustainable development is essential. Human activity cannot continue to use resources at the present rate without jeopardizing opportunities for future generations. Cities are the main arena of human activity, but they are also the greatest consumers of natural resources. However, urban sustainability is not just about environmental concerns, it is also about economic viability, liveability and social equity. Recently, much attention has focused on the relationship between urban form and sustainability, the suggestion being that the shape and density of cities can have implications for their future. From this debate, strong arguments are emerging that the compact city is the most sustainable urban form. Compact City is a high density urban settlement that has the following main characteristics: Central area revitalisation, High-density development, Mixed-use development and Services and facilities: hospitals, parks, schools, leisure and fun.

In recent years city planners, developers and policymakers have increasingly looked towards designing a more compact city in order to achieve a more sustainable urban form.  Policies of urban compaction involve the promotion of urban regeneration, the revitalisation of town centers, restraint on development in rural areas, higher densities, mixed-use development, promotion of public transport and the concentration of urban development at public transport nodes. There are many perceived benefits of the compact city over urban sprawl, which include: less car dependency thus lower emissions, reduced energy consumption, better public transport services, increased overall accessibility, the re-use of infrastructure and previously developed land, a regeneration of existing urban areas and urban vitality, a higher quality of life, the preservation of green space, and the creation of a milieu for enhanced business and trading activities. As sustainable development relies upon the combination of economic, social and environmental elements.  The Compact cities are generally attributed with high density urban development having increased socio-economic diversity and improved public realm providing ample opportunities for social interactions and exchanges with pedestrian friendly and closed knit urban form having equitable access to goods, services and facilities thereby minimizing environmental degradation, thus sustainable. But at the same time there are the literatures which point out that high density development have poor quality of life.

SMART CITY

A smart city is a place where the traditional networks and services are made more efficient with the use of digital and telecommunication technologies, for the benefit of its inhabitants and businesses. With this vision in mind, the European Union is investing in ICT research and innovation and developing policies to improve the quality of life of citizens and make cities more sustainable The smart city concept goes beyond the use of ICT for better resource use and less emissions. It means smarter urban transport networks, upgraded water supply and waste disposal facilities, and more efficient ways to light and heat buildings. And it also encompasses a more interactive and responsive city administration, safer public spaces and meeting the needs of an ageing population.

As the global population continues to grow at a steady pace, more and more people are moving to cities every single day. Experts predict the world’s urban population will double by 2050 – which means we’re adding the equivalent of seven New York Cities to the planet every single year. As our planet becomes more urban, our cities need to get smarter. To handle this large-scale urbanization, we’ll need to find new ways to manage complexity, increase efficiency, reduce expenses, and improve quality of life. With this rapid growth ahead of us, imagine if our cities could talk—if they could give us live status updates on traffic patterns, pollution, parking spaces, water, power and light. Imagine how that kind of information could improve the economic and environmental health of the city for residents, merchants, and visitors. Imagine how it could improve working conditions and productivity for the people who maintain the city. Emerging technologies are poised to reshape our urban environments. Using ultra-low power sensors, wireless networks, and web and mobile-based applications, Smart Cities are becoming a reality.

CONCLUSION

Transport costs have always been an important dimension in regional science. It is therefore remarkable that regional science and transport economics have developed in a rather unconnected way. Although being distinct, the routes of the two were parallel, and there are signs that the two fields will get closer to each other. This paper further discusses long run trends in transport costs and the potential spatial consequences. The main conclusion is that although in terms of money and time, the performance of transport has improved enormously, many economic activities have not become footloose to the extent as expressed by the notion of ‘death of distance’. One of the reasons discussed is the role of transaction costs, some being clearly related with distance.

It is clear that the city of the 21st century is no longer the city of the industrial era. Different spatial and temporal organizational principles, communication cultures, modes of economic organization and ways of life coexist in the current city. For urban and spatial planners the ICT related changes pose huge challenges, in the first place because the spatial reach of daily home and work activities and contacts has expanded from the local to the global scale. The consequences of this new spatial reach in the way of organization of the economy, business activities and everyday life have been enormous. On the other hand, the digital technologies that are the material support of the ‘wired new world’ are very dependent on conventional telecommunication infrastructures. These urban networks, deployed within and between cities, are still an understudied field. With very few exceptions the ICT infrastructures have been growing with little or no supervision or even awareness from local authorities. The lack of public authority and responsibility in the telecommunications sector and the discomfort of urban planners and local authorities regarding the technicalities of ICT infrastructures have played a role in the present disregard.

PIAGAM ASEAN : KESEJAHTERAAN KOMUNITI DALAM PEMBANGUNAN BANDAR-BANDAR DI ASEAN

PENGENALAN

Negara Anggota Persatuan Negara Asia Tenggara (ASEAN) telah ditubuhkan pada 8 Ogos 1967 yang dianggotai lima (5) negara iaitu Malaysia, Thailand, Filipina, Indonesia dan Singapura. Sehingga tahun 1999 ahli-ahli angota ASEAN telah bertambah kepada sepuluh (10) Negara dengan tambahan lima (5) negara  yang terdiri daripada Brunei Darulsalam, Vietnam, RDR Lao, Myanmar dan Kemboja. Matlamat utama penubuhan ASEAN adalah untuk kepentingan bersama dan mewujudkan kerjasama serantau dari segi politik, ekonomi, sosial serta kebudayaan. Melalui konsep kolektif ini, Negara-negara Anggota ASEAN berkongsi tanggungjawab untuk memajukan tingkat sosio-ekonomi dan memastikan kestabilan serta keamanan serantau yang bebas daripada ancaman dan pengaruh kuasa luar.

Malaysia telah dilantik sebagai Pengerusi ASEAN melalui penganjuran Sidang Kemuncak Asean ke-26 pada 26 dan 27 April 2015 lalu. Bersempena dengan kepimpinan Malaysia sebagai  Pengerusi ASEAN 2015, konsep Komuniti ASEAN telah berjaya ditonjolkan melalui tiga (3) dokumen yang terhasil pada Sidang Kemuncak ASEAN ini iaitu:

(i)        Deklarasi Kuala Lumpur (ASEAN Berorientasikan Rakyat, Berpaksikan Rakyat);

(ii)      Deklarasi Langkawi (Pergerakan Kesederhanaan Global); dan

(iii)   Deklarasi Menginstitusikan Daya Tahan ASEAN dan Komunitinya dan Rakyat Terhadap Bencana dan Perubahan Iklim.

PIAGAM ASEAN

Sepuluh (10) Negara-negara  ASEAN bersepakat untuk mewujudkan Piagam ASEAN yang berkuatkuasa pada 15 Disember 2008 bagi merintis langkah ke hadapan di dalam membentuk satu Komuniti ASEAN yang sejahtera, bersatu, bekerjasama, dinamik, prihatin, kredibiliti dan berketrampilan di pentas antarabangsa. Bagi mencapai matlamat tersebut, Piagam ASEAN telah menggariskan sebanyak limabelas (15) objektif di mana salah satu objektif yang dianggap berkaitan dengan peranan Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT), Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan desa Semenanjung Malaysia (JPBD) dan jabatan-jabatan di bawahnya ialah untuk menggalakkan pembangunan yang mampan supaya dapat memastikan alam sekitar di rantau ini dilindungi, kemampanan sumber aslinya, keselamatan dan kualiti hidup penduduknya yang tinggi dipelihara. ASEAN kini telah diperkukuhkan dengan penubuhan Majlis Komuniti ASEAN yang terdiri daripada tiga (3) tonggak utama iaitu:

(i)        Komuniti Politik-Keselamatan ASEAN (APSC);

(ii)      Komunti Ekonomi ASEAN (AEC); dan

(iii)     Komuniti Sosio-Budaya ASEAN (ASCC)

Melalui Piagam ASEAN ini, ASCC ada berkaitan dengan peranan KPKT yang menekankan aspek pembasmian kemiskinan, kesejahteraan komuniti, jaringan keselamatan sosial, kesihatan, bencana alam sekitar, kemampanan dan identiti serantau. Setiap Majlis Komuniti ASEAN hendaklah mempunyai Badan Menteri Sektor ASEAN yang berkaitan di bawah skopnya. Setiap Negara Anggota hendaklah menamakan wakil negaranya bagi setiap mesyuarat Majlis Komuniti ASEAN. Namun begitu dalam Lampiran 1 mukasurat 50 tiada dinyatakan peranan Menteri ASEAN yang bertanggungjawab bagi kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan untuk Majlis Komuniti Sosio-Budaya ASEAN.     Berdasarkan kepada Perkara 9 Piagam ASEAN Majlis Komuniti ASEAN untuk mencapai objektif setiap tiga tonggak utama adalah :

(i)        Memastikan pelaksanaan keputusan Sidang Kemuncak ASEAN yang berkaitan;

(ii)      Menyelaras kerja sektor yang berlainan di bawah skopnya dan tentang isu yang merentasi Majlis Komuniti ASEAN yang lain; dan

(iii)     Mengemukakan laporan dan syor kepada Sidang Kemuncak ASEAN tentang perkara di bawah skopnya

Berdasarkan kepada Lampiran 1 piagam ASEAN ini mukasurat 50, terdapat 17 Badan Menteri Sektor ASEAN di bawah ASCC yang berkaitan dengan peranan dan tanggungjawab menteri yang berkenaan. Namun begitu tiada peranan Menteri ASEAN yang berkaitan dengan kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan dapat memastikan dan menyelaraskan pelaksanaan keputusan Sidang Kemuncak ASEAN (ASEAN Summit). Peranan Menteri yang bertanggungjawab hal-ehwal kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan di bawah ASCC adalah selaras dengan Perkara 10 Piagam ASEAN Badan Menteri Sektor ASEAN  yang dapat:

(i)        Berfungsi mengikut mandat yang diwujudkan mengikut peranan masing-masing;

(ii)    Melaksanakan perjanjian dan keputusan Sidang Kemuncak ASEAN di bawah skop kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan;

(iii)    Memperkukuhkan kerjasama dalam bidang kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan bagi menyokong integrasi dan pembangunan komuniti ASEAN; dan

(iv)    Mengemukakan laporan dan syor kepada Majlis ASCC

            Walau bagaimanapun Perkara 10 dan 48 yang berkaitan  Lampiran 1 Piagam ASEAN ini mukasurat 50 boleh dipinda dan dikemaskini oleh Setiausaha Agung ASEAN atas syor Jawatankuasa Wakil Tetap tanpa menggunakan peruntukan tentang pindaan di bawah piagam ini dengan menambah perkara mengenai:

(i)    Peranan Menteri-menteri ASEAN yang bertanggungjawab bagi kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan; dan

(ii)      Mesyuarat Pegawai-pegawai Kanan bagi kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan

Menurut Perkara 48 Piagam ASEAN, mana-mana Negara Anggota ASEAN boleh mencadangkan pindaan Piagam ini yang dikemukakan oleh Majlis Penyelarasan ASEAN melalui konsensus kepada Sidang Kemuncak ASEAN untuk keputusannya. Keputusan ini hendaklah diratifikasikan oleh kesemua Negara Anggota mengikut Perkara 47. Tambahan pula mesyuarat Pegawai-pegawai Kanan dan Menteri-menteri ASEAN berkaitan dengan perancangan bandar, perumahan, kesejahteraan bandar dan komuniti serta tadbir urus kerajaan tempatan secara khusus untuk anggota-anggota ASEAN belum pernah dibincangkan di peringkat Menteri-menteri ASEAN sejak ASEAN ditubuhkan pada tahun 1968.

Perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan perancangan bandar, kesejahteraan bandar dan komuniti serta tadbir urus kerajaan tempatan hanya dibincangkan di peringkat Mesyuarat Gabenor / Datuk Bandar Ibu Negara ASEAN (Meeting of Governors/ Mayors of ASEAN Capitals) sejak mesyuarat pertama ini diadakan pada September  2013. Mesyuarat ini di bawah keurusetiaan Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan dan Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. Maka dengan itu, adalah wajar satu mesyuarat  Menteri-Menteri ASEAN yang lebih menyeluruh dan holisitik yang membincangkan isu-isu perancangan bandar, perumahan, kesejahteraan bandar , komuniti dan tadbir urus kerajaan tempatan di kalangan Negara-negara ASEAN perlu diadakan. Ini adalah kerana perkara-perkara ini merupakan isu-isu serantau (common issues) yang boleh dibincangkan dan diselaraskan antara anggota ASEAN.

Majlis Komuniti ASEAN untuk Badan Menteri Sektor  kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan kerajaan tempatan ASEAN di bawah organ Piagam ASEAN ini dapat memperhalusi program kerjasama, pembangunan kapasiti, kesedaran, dan aktiviti berkaitan kesejahteraan bandar yang melibatkan setiap Negara Anggota ASEAN, termasuk kerjasama dalam bidang perancangan bandar, kesejahteraan bandar dan komuniti serta tadbir urus kerajaan tempatan Negara Anggota ASEAN dengan Negara + 4 (Jepun, Korea, Australia dan China).

KESIMPULAN

Badan Menteri Sektor Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan ASEAN di bawah YB Menteri KPKT diharapkan akan menjadi satu titik tolak penting kepada Malaysia untuk melangkah ke hadapan mengutarakan isu-isu dan cadangan berkenaan pembangunan kesejahteraan bandar, perumahan dan pengurusan kerajaan tempatan di kalangan Negara-negara ASEAN.  Ini selaras dengan visi Komuniti ASEAN pasca 2015 yang mewujudkan komuniti ASEAN yang berorentasikan rakyat, berpaksikan rakyat dan meningkatkan kerjasama dalam keselamatan-politik, ekonomi dan sosio-budaya untuk pembangunan yang berdaya tahan, saksama dan inklusif.