Previous Page  94 / 114 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 94 / 114 Next Page
Page Background

[

] 92

youth (aged 19-30); adults (aged 31-55); senior citizens

(aged 56 and above); and disabled people. Focus group

discussion questions included:

• What are the issues/problems you experience?

• Why do these issues/problems occur?

• How can these issues/problems be resolved?

Residents voted based on a ‘priority needs’ list that emerged

from the focus group discussions. Each individual (including

residents aged 10 years and above for housing projects) was

given ballots to vote for their prioritized items.

Step two used the outcomes of step one for planning and

budgeting. Decisions were based on project feasibility, techni-

cal considerations and budget availability. Step three was the

implementation of the project, and in step four the project was

monitored and evaluated.

Project one: housing

Project one was a housing project at two low-cost apartment

complexes owned and managed by MPSP and MBPP. Projek

Perumahan Rakyat (PPR) Jalan Sungai comprises two 22-storey

blocks housing 529 three-bedroom units, and PPR Ampangan

is a 10-storey block of 250 low-cost three-bedroom units. Each

block has an average rental of RM110 (US$35) a month.

The project started with a household survey to get informa-

tion on the background of the residents. Women formed the

majority of residents in both places, at 53.5 per cent in PPR

Jalan Sungai and 53.4 per cent in Ampangan. The numbers

for each focus group discussion were planned (based on the

information compiled in step one), to ensure diversity in repre-

sentation of gender, age and ethnicity in both PPRs. Special

interactive sessions with children aged 10-13 sought to create

awareness and educate the children about gender issues in their

homes and surroundings through drawing and colouring.

Overall more women, many of them housewives, aged 31-55

attended the focus group discussions than men and women

from other age groups. Through the discussions, a list of the

residents’ important needs was compiled and classified accord-

ing to themes, projects and programmes that the community

could work on in their own apartment complexes. All residents

aged 10 and above were eligible to vote. An encouraging 69.5

per cent of the 1,667 PPR Jalan Sungai residents and 67.5 per

cent of the 886 PPR Ampangan residents who were eligible

participated in the voting process. At the end of the three-day

voting process, most PPR Jalan Sungai residents chose build-

ing maintenance as their top concern, while PPR Ampangan

residents voted for a recreational park as their highest priority.

The project planning, budgeting and implementation

proved to be the most challenging as it stretched to over 10

months of numerous consultations among local councils, resi-

dents and the GRB team. This was because of the technicality

of implementation, which had to follow standard procedures

laid down by local councils, as well as internal problems

within the communities.

Project two: Campbell Street Market rejuvenation

In 2015 the GRPB methodology was tested out in MBPP

and MPSP public facilities projects that involved a much

wider community. In the past, the method would be to get

architects/planners to propose designs based on general

specifications and recommendations made by MBPP in the

tender documents. However, for this project MBPP decided

to implement the GRPB process and duly sought the help

and involvement of PWDC.

Priorities voted for by the residents of PPR Ampangan and PPR Jalan Sungai

Ampangan Apartment Complex

Projects

Projects

Per cent

Jalan Sungai Apartment Complex

Total

Men

Women

25

20

15

10

5

0

Recreational

park

Building

security

Recreational park won

8% women voted for it

12% men voted for it

Building maintenance won

23% women voted for it

20% men voted for it

Dangerous

junction

Space

for small

business

Activity

space

Security

of area

Security

of area

Parking

lots

Playground Education/

Awareness

programme

Building

maintenance

Cleanliness

Cleanliness

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Per cent

A B

etter

W

orld