KAJISELIDIK BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA 2016 : KEMAMPUAN RAKYAT MALAYSIA MILIKI RUMAH

sumber : Berita Harian 25 April 2016

MALAYSIA HAPPINESS INDEX : A MAJOR STEP FORWARD | from The Star Online

A major step forward - Opinion | The Star Online

ON April 9, I had written to the press and posed the question: “Can Malaysia take up the challenge to adopt the UN Happiness Index? Yes we can and we should!” Thus, like all or most Malaysians, I am very encouraged that our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak officially announced a Malaysian Happiness Index last Saturday, and also rated Malaysia’s Happiness Index at 7.55 on a scale of 10 and graded it a B Plus! This announcement is a major step forward in our socio-economic and even political policy and planning. It transforms the traditional emphasis on economic measurement of national and the individual well-being and progress to a much more meaningful and holistic measurement of our national progress.  No more then should we give almost exclusive attention to the Gross National Product (GNP) as the almost only measurement of our progress, but move more purposefully towards quantifying our quality of life and our advancement in more human terms, that relate more directly to our human welfare.

However, while we warmly welcome this new policy transformation, we must raise questions of how this new Malaysian Happiness Index and its rating have been devised and rated so specifically at B plus? Malaysians would want to know what constitutes the index and how has it been assessed?  Have the Malaysian public, professionals, academicians and all interested parties, been consulted about the methodology, and quality of this important index.   In short, has there been adequate transparency, accountability and integrity shown to ensure the credibility and public acceptability of this vital index. After all, this index could well determine the future direction of our economy and our national well-being and future? Thankfully, we are told that multi-components of the index, such as the crime rate, pollution, traffic woes, maternity leave and possibly even family happiness, have been taken into account

But the question arises as to whether some other very significant and even overriding issues have been seriously considered in compiling this index. For instance, have we included national unity, poverty of the bottom 40%, the widening income disparities, human rights, racial and religious polarisation and understanding and a host of components that normally would be covered in any sound Happiness Index. Unless and until we include major structural and policy transformations for the fair implementation of current affirmative action policies, that should be based on income and basic needs that benefit all Malaysians, the index will become unacceptable, disuniting and even destabilising. Hence we must take the bull by the horns otherwise national, societal and individual happiness and real national unity will continue to evade us all.

As we must all be aware, the United Nations has its own professionally and universally accredited and acceptable Happiness Index. In that index, Malaysia was ranked 51 out of 156 countries last year. Hence Malaysians will want to know how our own internal index compares in methodology, quality and professional integrity, with the UN index? This kind of cross reference is essential to improve the credibility, acceptability and respect for our own Malaysian-made Happiness Index.

TAN SRI RAMON NAVARATNAM

Chairman, Asli Center of Public Policy Studies

HAPPINESS INDEX STUDY BY FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING IS HIGHLIGHTED IN NST 5 JUNE 2012 PAGE 26

HAPPY TO BE RICH......by Alizan Mahadi

HAS your life been 4.7 per cent better within the last three months? If the economic indicator in the form of gross domestic product (GDP) accurately reflects personal well-being, this statement would ring true as the figure quoted is Malaysia's GDP growth rate for the first quarter of this year.  owever, the notion of GDP as a yardstick for well-being is being challenged, with the recently published orld Happiness Report generating much excitement and debate in the field of measuring progress. GDP measures the total production of a country and is used by most countries to measure and compare economic growth and overall economic performance. Various quarters have questioned its adequacy in capturing higher order goals of nations such as well-being, and have suggested alternative or supplementary measures.Undeniably, the GDP has served us well and will continue to do so. Malaysia has transformed itself since the 1970s by averaging impressive growth rates. However, in what is termed the Easterlin Paradox, studies indicate that whilst societies tend to be happier with an increase in income to meet basic necessities, beyond a certain point, the relationship between happiness and income is only down to how your earnings compare with those around you.

As we chart our developmental journey from middle income towards a high-income country, is it the pursuit of high-economic growth or the pursuit of happiness on which we should focus our efforts?The United Nations commissioned a study on happiness, and the resultant World Happiness Report was recently published. The report was inspired by Bhutan, where gross national happiness (GNH) is measured instead of GDP.Based on surveys undertaken in 156 countries, Malaysia was placed 51st in the World Happiness rankings. Is 51st place a credible ranking? As we aspire to emulate bigger Asian economies such as South Korea and China, the ranking shows that we figure quite well, being placed higher than these countries, which are ranked 56th and 112th respectively along with being the second "happiest" country in Southeast Asia, only behind Singapore. On the other hand, being ranked 51st out of 156 countries is nothing to shout about.

However, a look at another survey provides "better" results for Malaysia. The World Values Study's Happiness Index, which was also quoted in the report, carried out a survey based on a simple question of whether "in general are you very happy, quite happy, not very happy or not happy at all?" Malaysia was ranked a respectable eighth above Norway (ninth) and below Singapore (seventh) out of 103 countries surveyed.The report explains that the variances are down to different methodologies, with the first methodology being more comprehensive. But this demonstrates the subjectivity prevalent in measuring happiness.So, should we take this seriously? While challenges persist, the quest for measuring what is most important to us should not be abandoned. The more important question is whether it is happiness that we value most.The context of this emerging "industry" of measuring happiness has to be understood. The "happynomics" movement is gaining prominence borne out of the recognition that we cannot continue to develop the way we have been.Environmental degradation has resulted in the erosion of our critical natural capital that is vital for sustaining life and preserving our well-being. Alternative means of increasing well-being must be pursued if we are to have any future at all.

The idea is simple: there is more to life than economic growth.The World Happiness Report takes its cue from Buddha and Aristotle, highlighting that the road to happiness is not through increasing material wealth, but towards a middle path between restraint on the one side and craving material goods on the other.In spite of our cultural diversity, the middle path is a shared value between Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and Hindus alike. The concept of wasatiyyah in Islam encourages pursuing moderation and balance and Malaysia has formed an Institute of Wasatiyyah along with championing the Global Movement of Moderates. There are also encouraging efforts within Malaysia for alternative methods of measuring progress. The Federal Department of Town and Country Planning is undertaking a study in happiness indicators within Malaysia and the Economic Planning Unit produces the Malaysian Quality of Life Index. Whether we focus on happiness or not, the most important thing is to continue and enhance efforts that can provide a real understanding of what we value most as Malaysians, and find metrics that can best measure what we ourselves define as progress. On top of that, we also have to ensure we choose a path that will provide sustained progress to preserve and enhance the ability of our current and future generations to pursue our path towards happiness.

Read more: Happy to be rich - Columnist - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/happy-to-be-rich-1.91039#ixzz0waj39Wit

GEOHAZARD MAPS AND URBAN PLANNING.... NEW TASK FOR FEDERAL DEPARTMENT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

Q: You said at a recent climate change conference that before 2004, planners lived in a comfort zone. Why is that?
A: Before 2004, it was difficult to compare our country with others like the Philippines where they have strong typhoons. We have our fair share of disasters but not like the floods in Bangladesh. Ours are smaller, or flash floods. We are in a sheltered platform.

Q: Planners always said these were one-off things. Why should we pay attention to them?
A: We went to Aceh after the tsunami. It made us wonder if it could have happened to Malaysia. Sure, about 200,000 people died in Aceh and only 68 in Malaysia, but a life is a life. We have to do something. We've addressed floods to some extent in our planning but have never gone into detail like drawing up flood-risk maps. Then comes climate change and everything goes haywire, like the floods in Johor. With that awareness, we started Lupar (land-use planning for assessment of risk) which was designed to raise awareness among planners and get them to include risk management in their planning. As a result, two new local plans which are coming out soon will be more specialised.

Q: What's different about these plans?
A: The local plans for Kota Kuala Muda in Kedah and Kota Tinggi in Johor will each have a chapter on geo-hazards, with risk maps included. . The Kuala Muda plan will be up for public viewing early next year while the Kota Tinggi plan will be out before year end. We will look at all the measurements of the physical and biological impact of the tsunami and the areas it inundated, and categorise the areas according to the acuity of these risks. For the first time in a local plan, we will have areas marked high, medium or low risk in relation to a hazard. This is required under the Hyogo Framework of Action, of which Malaysia is a signatory. It requires member countries to make disaster planning a concern and to spell out measures to address disasters.

Q: What other new information will the plans have?
A: There are modelling and simulation to see which areas will be affected by floods and the extent of the damage. We don't have much to spend on modelling so we're recommending that this portion be taken up by technical agencies with the expertise and money. Modelling is expensive. It runs into millions. Consultants are now doing it for us, but we feel that isn't the way forward. For these two plans, we've also had focus group discussions with local communities to fill in information gaps, like which areas were inundated during the tsunami or floods and how high the water rose. We ask whether they think their house should be relocated and if yes, where, or where do they think their reban (chicken coop) should be placed? If they want to stay in the area in spite of the risks, then we have to think of other measures to deal with the hazards. In Kota Tinggi, we are proposing that on flood-prone lands committed to development, developers must raise buildings and make the ground level free of obstacles. Like a kampung house on stilts, the building is raised and cars can park underneath. If they can't do it, they have to be relocated. But this has financial and social costs so we suggest alternatives. All this will be built into our policies and plans and made public, which will make things more accountable. Everyone will know where the risk areas are and can comment on or object to them.

Q: Will there be repercussions for this?
A: Some repercussions may be a drop in land value but, overseas, people are told which areas are flood prone so that they can control development.

Q: Will these new aspects become a feature of all new local plans?
A: Yes. We are hoping these will become the templates for other local plans. Under the 10th Malaysia Plan, we hope to review all existing local plans and put in the measures for geo-hazards.

Q: How many local plans would you be reviewing?
A: About 140. But this will be done gradually. We have to work this out with the Department of Irrigation and Drain-age (DID) because it is studying the impact of climate change on flooding. We are working with it and the National Hydraulic Research Institute (Nahrim). They will pass their findings to us and we will convert that into land-use policies. That way, we don't have to spend thousands collecting our own information. They are the experts with the technology. We don't have that level of expertise.

Q: How will these plans help local authorities? What should they do with this information?
A: The local plans are not just legal documents but also public documents. The local authorities which previously may not have had guidance will now have, for the first time, a document that tells them which areas to develop, which areas should have less development and which are no-go areas.

Q: Is there enough information for us to do hazard maps and models for all local authority areas?
A: No. To simulate a flood situation, you need very accurate basic data. We need high-resolution contour maps. To get that, we need special satellite images. We've also conducted a geo-hazard study in land-use planning. We're coming out with development guidelines for areas susceptible to floods, fires and landslides first. When the study is finalised next June, it will tell local councils how to categorise hazards and how to identify areas that are prone to these problems. It will give them some measures according to the level of danger, for instance, in Category 1, what kind of development is recommended and what measures to take if they want to develop there. This will be fed into local plans. The local authorities will have a good guide on how to apply this information. We need Nahrim, Akademi Sains Malaysia, universities and other agencies to give their input.

Q: Will these two new plans be easy to understand for residents ?
A: Yes. The approach now is for user-friendly plans. If you have a piece of land in the district, you can look at the plan and it can tell you what the risks are.

Q: But the climate is unpredictable. After the guidelines are issued, how regularly will the information be updated?
A: The department will do this. If there is a request from the state, we will look at it. A review request can even come from the National Physical Planning Council chaired by the prime minister, or even from the cabinet if it sees that the situation on the ground has changed enough for a review. We will also listen to public feedback. In any case, we will review the plan every five years.

Q: This kind of information will affect land prices. If a direction for a review can come from the top, isn't there room for abuse? A politician who wants to jack up the value of an area might skew the review in his favour.
A: The information will be made public and people can question us on the categories. Probably the first question people will ask is: how sure are you that my land is Category 1 for floods? We will explain that the potential of it being flooded every five years is there. The checks and balances will come from the people. When we put up these documents for public views and objections, we're giving land-owners the chance to ask us. People may not want it to be so but if the government feels it is for their safety, then the land should be designated as such. The other thing we're looking into is the role of the insurance sector. If you still want to develop projects in these flood-prone areas, you'll have to pay higher premiums. If you look at other countries, geo-hazard areas are declared and gazetted. Anyone who wants to develop the area has to pay a higher premium that will compensate for when hazards occur or serve as a deterrent to building in a dangerous area. We could also add stringent measures for building in the area.

Q: When you start reviewing all existing local plans, you might find areas where there shouldn't have been any development, right?
A: Once an area is designated as a geo-hazard risk, then we'll consider options. If we want to build, should we raise the level of buildings? Or should we buy back the land and turn it into a park like they've done in Hawaii? Or should we relocate everyone? What will the costs be? It's really a question of whether we want to pay less now and more in the long run or the other way round.

Q: What if the review finds a neighbourhood that is prone to disasters?
A: They may have to relocate or we could take mitigative action action or realign the development. There are many measures but, in the worst-case scenario, people may have to move. Whatever the recommendation, it will be specific to the location. You can't have one plan to fit all areas.

Q: You've been talking mostly about floods. What about preparing for other disasters like earthquakes?
A: Yes, we will be looking at those in the 10th Malaysia Plan. Right now, we're only looking at floods, landslides and fires. Next, we'll look at earthquakes, tsunami and industrial disasters.

Q: Will the geo-hazard mapping also look at things like the many developments on reclaimed lands?
A: The National Physical Plan (NPP) doesn't encourage it but some states still go ahead and do it. Our policy still stands: reclamation should be the last resort. The NPP discourages high-density development on reclaimed land.

Q: Will the department also look into the ability of structures to withstand some of these geo-hazards that you are identifying?
A: We'll have to work with the Public Works Department (PWD) on that because it has a structural unit that looks at the effects of landslides, earthquakes, flood and wind resistance on structures.

Q: How will you convince state and local governments that this is important and that they have to follow it?
A: We're planning to present it at the National Physical Planning Council, which is chaired by the prime minister. All the chiefs of states and heads of departments will be there. This is something that we have to follow and we'd get their commitment. Then we'll monitor, check the developments, build public awareness and have periodic reporting on compliance levels.

Q: If there's non-compliance?
A: Then the states have got to tell us why.

Q: And by that time the public will know where development is ill-advised?
A: That, too. This is our new baby and we're excited. We don't know yet how the states are going to react. But I think after seeing what happened in Kota Tinggi, they'll all be for it. We hope that it'll even come to the stage where they'll be the ones advising us on where the evacuation routes should be if a tsunami came.

Q: Are we planning too far ahead? Some people say climate change and the extreme weather it promises will only be a problem 100 years from now.
A: We are actually way, way behind. In terms of disaster planning, we're behind Sri Lanka and the Philippines. They even have disaster-enactment scenarios.

Q: We're talking about things that are natural hazards, but what about man-made hazards?
A: That's why we must have an integrated way of doing things. Let's say if I'm building a building now, what're the effects of it downstream? Will it cause floods? Where? Through modelling, you can find out the level of density of development allowed. You'll have to run your land- use proposal, your density through a model to figure out the impact of it downstream. It's basically calibrating your development plan. It's not mandatory to do that now, but we must have that. We might, together with DID, develop such a system, so that it can be made mandatory for all future development proposals. So when you submit your development plan to the local or city council, the council and DID will run it through the model to see how it will impact the environment. We also have to change our procedures of planning approval. We're suggesting that all applications be submitted together with a history of floods in that area. And the local authority is encouraged to establish a databank that collects information on previous disasters in their area. Our culture of documentation is so low. We have to develop that.

Q: If my house is in a high-risk landslide category, but the council comes and does mitigation work, will my house be re-categorised?
A: Yes. We will review the categories from time to time.

Q: What other areas will you look at after Kota Tinggi and Kota Kuala Muda?
A: We will give priority to flood-prone areas, like Segamat, for instance. Landslide-prone areas are next on our list. The PWD has put together a unit that identifies vulnerable slopes along highways. We just need them to expand that to include other potential vulnerable areas, like settlements and areas around rivers.

SOURCE : NEW STRAITS TIME 2 NOV 2008

NEWSPAPER CUTTING ON KUALA LUMPUR CITY- A Vision for A World Class City

Click the news paper cutting if you wish to read in detail....

NEWSPAPER CUTTING ON KUALA LUMPUR CITY- A Vision for A World Class City

Click the news paper cutting if you wish to read in detail....