Habsah
Hashim a, Kamarul Bahrain Shuib b
a, b Faculty of Architecture,
Planning and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi Mara (UITM), Shah Alam, Malaysia.
a Corresponding author: habsah99@yahoo.com
©Ontario
International Development Agency ISSN: 1923-6654 (print)
Abstract: Besides the natural system, the concept of
sustainable development also encompasses the economic and social systems. In line with this concept, the Selangor State
Structure Plan, 2002-2020 stated that the state is very committed towards
implementing sustainable development and acknowledged the importance of social
improvement. This is consistent with the
Selangor sustainable development philosophy that highlighted the need to
balance between economic growth, social wellbeing and environmental conservation. However, it is a common tendency for state
and local authorities to focus more on the physical aspects and economic growth
without comparable agenda in the social aspects. The state of Selangor can certainly be
proud of its robust economy and extremely rapid physical development but could
the same be said of its social infrastructure and public facilities? In an attempt to answer the aforementioned
question, this paper presented the comparisons of several economic and social
development indicators between the state of Selangor and the other states in
Malaysia. Seven indicators for economic
development and eight indicators for social development were compared. The economic development indicators include
employment by various sectors, income and socio-economic measures, while the
social development indicators include the provision of health, education and
public facilities. The findings from
comparing the various indicators show that the states of Selangor and Johor
share the third rank, behind the states of Penang and Melaka in the economic
development indicators. However, for social development indicators, Selangor
ranked the lowest among all the fourteen states. Findings from the comparisons indicated that
the social development in the state was not at par with the rapidly growing
economy and the extensive physical development that had taken place. As such, the state government and local
authorities in Selangor should give greater emphasis to social aspects of
development in order to achieve the state’s sustainable development agenda.
Keywords: development
indicators, economic growth, social improvement, sustainable development
Introduction
T
|
he World Commission
on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as “development
which meets the needs and aspirations of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). In the Conference on Environment and
Development convened in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the United Nations proclaimed
under Principle 1 that “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for
sustainable development. They are
entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature” (United
Nations, 1992: 2). As such, other than
focusing on the environment, sustainable development is also related to
improving the quality of life within a community. In the 1995 World Summit for Social
Development, delegates agreed that development should aim at improving and enhancing
the quality of life of all people. The
delegates felt that there is a need to “integrate economic, cultural and social
policies so that they become mutually supporting ...” (United Nations,
1995). The sustainable measures website
(n.d) stated that sustainability relates to whether the three major components
of development i.e. “the economic, social and environmental systems that make
up the community are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all
community residents, present and future”.
A sustainable community defined by the Institute for Sustainable
Communities (2011) as “one that is economically, environmentally, and socially
healthy and resilient”. The concern for
improving the quality of life is also emphasized by the Malaysian government
whereby in the latest strategic plan (the 10th Malaysia Plan), the
government expressed that it is “committed to ensuring a high quality of life
in urban and rural areas in line with Malaysia’s aspiration to become a
developed nation” (Economic Planning Unit, 2010: 246). Although there were concerns for ensuring the
quality of life for the community, it is a common tendency
for state and local authorities to focus more on the physical aspects of
development and economic growth without comparable agenda in the social
aspects. Mountjoy (1982) observed that, “Economic growth alone is not
development; social improvement in terms of education, health and welfare is an
integral part of the modernization process” (p. 234). This discrepency was
also addressed in the Beijing Declaration whereby it was mentioned that “Accelerated
economic growth, although necessary for social development, does not by itself
improve the quality of life of the population” (United Nations, 1996: 8). Similar observation was also made in the
Ninth Malaysia Plan, stating that “there is a need to strengthen the overall
mindset, culture, values and social institutions to be more in step with the
country’s economic development” (Economic Planning Unit, 2006: 4). In analyzing this issue, this paper compares
several development indicators between Selangor and the other states in
Malaysia in terms of economic and social development. The indicators chosen reflect economic
growth, quality of life and standard of social facilities provisions. Most of the indicators were obtained from
published governmental reports and national census.
Development In Selangor
Development in Selangor has a long history and can be traced back to
begin in 1880 when the state administration moved from Klang to Kuala Lumpur
(Dewan Negeri Selangor, n.d.). On 1st.
February 1974, the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur was established and
Selangor’s state capital shifted from Kuala Lumpur to Shah Alam (Shah Alam City
Council, 2006). Therefore, the early
development in Selangor started with the growth of Kuala Lumpur as the state
capital. Thereafter, development which centered in Kuala Lumpur spread to
surrounding areas around the district of Petaling, Hulu Langat and Gombak
forming the most developed region in the country i.e. the Klang Valley. As such, the state had enjoyed develoment
overspill from the nation’s capital, Kuala Lumpur. Figure 1 shows the location and the state of
Selangor, Malaysia. The percentage of urban
population can become an important indicator for
development. The percentage of urban population
in Selangor was second lowest among the thirteen states in Malaysia in
1970. However, the urban population in
Selangor increases drastically thereafter; by 1980 Selangor is second to Penang
in terms of the level of urbanization. The
past two decades had witnessed tremendous growth in the state and in the latest
census Selangor took the lead as the most urbanized state in Malaysia. The level of urbanization which stood at 88.4
percent in 2005 matched some of the more developed countries. Refer to Table 1. Selangor had certainly undergone very rapid
development, where its urban areas became centers for population concentration. This rapid growth is only possible through
migration of people from outside, especially from the rural areas. Towns in the Klang Valley like Shah Alam,
Petaling Jaya, Subang Jaya, Klang, Selayang, Rawang, Kajang and Bangi were
swarmed with migrants seeking for jobs and better living condition.
Selangor Sustainable Development Initiative
According to the Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor and The Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI) UKM (2003), sustainable development initiative started with the Selangor’s
Commitment to Sustainable Development in
June 1999. This was followed by a
three-year project to produce blueprints for sustainable development, namely:
Environmentally Sensitive Areas of Selangor, Strategy for Sustainable
Development of Selangor, Agenda 21 Selangor and Guidelines for the
Implementation of Agenda 21 Selangor. These documents were published between 1999-
2002. The State government has also
declared the year 2002 as the “Year of Implementation of Agenda 21 Selangor” . The state defines sustainable development as
“development that requires a reformation of the economy that takes into serious
account the impact of development on the environment, natural resources and
society” (p. 3). As such, besides
safeguarding the environment, development should also ensure the well-being of
society. This is in accordance to the
State’s commitment made in 1999. In
outlining ten commitments that covers several areas (including society,
ecosystem, economy, natural resources, agriculture, settlements,
infrastructure, human resource and public involvement), the State government recognized
that “the growth of the State’s economy is closely related to the need to
enhance social well-being and the importance of preserving the quality of the
environment” (p. 4). The sustainable
development strategy for Selangor outlined five sectoral and six cross sectoral policy
objectives. Several of these policy
objectives addressed society and social well-being.
(Diagram removed due to incompatible formatting)
|
|
Figure 1:
Location of Selangor within Malaysia
State
|
1970
|
1980
|
1991
|
2000
|
20051
|
Kuala
Lumpur
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Selangor
|
9.5
|
40.9
|
75.2
|
88.3
|
88.4
|
Penang
|
51.0
|
47.5
|
75.0
|
79.5
|
79.8
|
Melaka
|
25.1
|
23.8
|
38.7
|
67.3
|
70.6
|
Johor
|
26.3
|
35.2
|
47.8
|
63.9
|
66.5
|
Perak
|
27.5
|
33.8
|
53.6
|
59.5
|
59.3
|
Negeri
Sembilan
|
21.6
|
32.6
|
42.0
|
55.0
|
56.3
|
Terengganu
|
27.0
|
42.9
|
44.5
|
49.4
|
49.8
|
Sabah
|
16.9
|
19.9
|
33.2
|
48.3
|
49.8
|
Sarawak
|
15.5
|
18.0
|
37.5
|
47.9
|
49.5
|
Pahang
|
19.0
|
26.1
|
30.4
|
42.1
|
43.5
|
Kedah
|
12.6
|
22.5
|
32.5
|
38.7
|
39.8
|
Kelantan
|
15.1
|
28.1
|
33.5
|
33.5
|
33.4
|
Perlis
|
-
|
8.9
|
26.6
|
33.8
|
35.1
|
MALAYSIA
|
26.8
|
35.8
|
50.7
|
61.8
|
63.0
|
Source:
Jamaliah (2004) Table 2
1 Economic Planning Unit
(2006)
Selangor State Structure Plan
In-line with the State’s sustainable development strategy, the
preparation of the Selangor State Structure Plan 2020 had incorporated the
principles of sustainable development at every levels of the plan preparation (Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor, 2005). This was achieved through the
implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Social Impact
Assessment (SIA). SEA was undertaken to
ensure that the policies and proposals
outlined did not cause negative impact to the environment while SIA ensures
that the same policies and proposals did not affect the quality of life of any
groups in the community, but could further enhance their quality of life.
The goal of the Selangor State Structure Plan is to ensure physical
development that supports the vision of a holistic developed state, sustainable
development and the formation of a prosperous society. The objectives for economic development are: (a)
to diversify economic activities, sustainable utilization of existing economic
and natural resources and introduce new economic base that is innovative and
sustainable; (b) to support economic and commercial development that are
environmental friendly and continuous; (c) to increase the socio-economic
status of the population and eradicate poverty.
The objectives for physical and environmental development are: (a) to
ensure that resources are used sustainably according to current needs; (b) to
conserve environmentally sensitive areas that have been identified and to
improve environmental quality; (c) to create a balance in the distribution and
hierarchy of towns within and between districts; (d)to increase the provision
of transport facilities, infrastructure and utilities that are more efficient,
comprehensive, sufficient and in-line with technological advancement.
The objectives of social development are: (a) to increase the provision
of adequate housing and fulfill the needs of every levels of society; increase
homeownership and avoid the formation of squatters; (b) to provide social
facilities fairly and in accordance with population distribution; (c) to
increase the provision of community facilities that are sufficient, of good
quality and with latest technology for every levels of society.
To achieve the above objectives, the Selangor State Structure Plan 2020
had recommended 34 policies which consist of 9 policies for economic
development, 19 policies for physical and environmental development and 6
policies for social development. The
policies that relate to sustainable development and social well-being are as
follows: (a) FZ 1: All development should
be based on sustainable management of resources. (b) FZ 2: Sustainable city development methods such as
compact and mixed development should be given emphasis in the development of
every town. (c) FZ 5: Environmentally
sensitive areas in the state must be gazetted and managed according to the
types of development and land use that had been determined. (d) FZ 6: At least 30 percent of the state is to be
gazetted as permanent forest reserve or conservation areas. (e) FZ 7: Environmental quality in urbanized areas to
be improved to create environments that support a safer, comfortable and
prosperous living. (f) FZ 8: Planning
and integrated management of the environment to be implemented with the
involvement of all parties. (g) FZ 15:
Travel demand management needs to be implemented to create sustainable
urban transportation. (h) FZ 18: The
level of infrastructure and utility provision need to be improved. (i) FZ
19: The level of social facilities and
community services need to be improved.
Development Indicators
Can
the various neighborhoods in cities, towns and villages in the state of
Selangor afford to cater for the massive in-migration of people and ensure
decent quality of life in fulfilling the State’s commitment to achieve
sustainable development objectives? This
section explores several development indicators that attempts to gauge and
compare situations in Selangor with the other states in Malaysia. Each of the 15 indicators for the 14 states
in Malaysia were ranked from 1 (as the highest) to 14 (as the lowest). The indicators for economic development are:
(a) Percent of labour force in manufacturing (b) Percent of labour force in agriculture (c) Per
Capita GDP (d) Mean monthly household income (e) Gini Coefficient (f) Private
cars registration per thousand population (g) Fixed telephone line per thousand
population. From this list, 2 indicators are negative whereby; a lower value is more
desirable i.e. indicator 2 and 5. The
indicators for social development are: (a) Hospital beds per 100,000 population
(b) Doctor : Population Ratio (c) Teacher : Pupil Ratio (primary school) (d) Teacher
: Pupil Ratio (secondary school) (e) Post Office per 100,000 population (f) Public
Library per 100,000 population (g) Public bus establishment per 100,000
population (h) Juvenile Offenders per thousand population. From this list, 4 indicators are negative
whereby; a lower value is more desirable i.e.
indicator 2, 3, 4 and 8
Table 2: Economic
Development Indicators by State
Manufacturing Labor Force (%) (2002)1
|
Agriculture Labor Force (%) (2002)1
|
Per Capita GDP (RM in current prices) (2000)2
|
Mean Monthly Gross Household Income
(RM in current prices) (2002)3
|
Gini Coefficient
(2002)3
|
Private Cars Registration
|
Fixed Telephone Lines
|
|
(per thousand population)
(2002)3
|
|||||||
Johor
|
33.6
|
10.4
|
13,954
|
2,963
|
0.4081
|
223.0
|
206.9
|
Kedah
|
26.3
|
15.9
|
8,919
|
1,966
|
0.4255
|
89.2
|
160.1*
|
Kelantan
|
14.0
|
20.1
|
6,241
|
1,674
|
0.4422
|
88.5
|
107.8
|
Melaka
|
26.4
|
6.2
|
15,723
|
2,650
|
0.3859
|
214.0
|
231.7
|
Negeri
Sembilan
|
22.3
|
17.5
|
12,791
|
2,739
|
0.4011
|
189.0
|
206.4
|
Pahang
|
12.8
|
29.4
|
10,370
|
1,991
|
0.4035
|
130.1
|
145.7
|
Perak
|
21.5
|
13.1
|
13,183
|
2,153
|
0.4171
|
170.8
|
210.4
|
Perlis
|
13.8
|
14.7
|
10,802
|
2,006
|
0.4368
|
44.6
|
-
|
Penang
|
40.4
|
1.8
|
21,469
|
3,496
|
0.4353
|
346.7
|
272.7
|
Sabah
|
10.9
|
31.0
|
9,123
|
2,406
|
0.4649
|
79.6
|
83.0
|
Sarawak
|
11.8
|
31.2
|
12,775
|
2,515
|
0.4451
|
135.2
|
130.5
|
Selangor
|
26.0
|
2.4
|
17,363
|
4,400
|
0.4234
|
149.5
|
244.1
|
Terengganu
|
12.4
|
13.6
|
22,994
|
1,837
|
0.4239
|
91.5
|
148.0
|
Kuala
Lumpur
|
11.6
|
0.2
|
30,727
|
4,930
|
0.4481
|
994.5
|
231.7
|
MALAYSIA
|
21.7
|
13.8
|
14,584
|
203.9
|
187.3
|
||
Source: 1 Department of Statistics
(2004)
2 Economic
Planning Unit (2001)
3 Economic
Planning Unit (2004)
* Including Perlis
Manufac-turing Labor Force
+
|
Agricul-ture Labor Force
-
|
Per Capita GDP
+
|
Mean Monthly Gross Household Income
+
|
Gini Coefficient
-
|
Private Cars Registra-tion
+
|
Fixed Telephone Lines
+
|
Average
Score
|
Rank
|
|
Penang
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
9
|
2
|
1
|
3.00
|
1
|
Melaka
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
3.71
|
2
|
Johor
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
5
|
4.14
|
3
|
Selangor
|
5
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
6
|
7
|
2
|
4.14
|
3
|
Kuala
Lumpur
|
13
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
13
|
1
|
3
|
4.71
|
5
|
Negeri
Sembilan
|
6
|
10
|
8
|
5
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
6.00
|
6
|
Perak
|
7
|
6
|
7
|
9
|
5
|
6
|
4
|
6.29
|
7
|
Terengganu
|
11
|
7
|
2
|
13
|
7
|
10
|
8
|
8.29
|
8
|
Kedah
|
4
|
9
|
13
|
12
|
8
|
11
|
7
|
9.14
|
9
|
Pahang
|
10
|
12
|
11
|
11
|
3
|
9
|
9
|
9.29
|
10
|
Perlis
|
9
|
8
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
14
|
-
|
10.17
|
11
|
Sarawak
|
12
|
14
|
9
|
7
|
12
|
8
|
10
|
10.29
|
12
|
Kelantan
|
8
|
11
|
14
|
14
|
11
|
12
|
11
|
11.57
|
13
|
Sabah
|
14
|
13
|
12
|
8
|
14
|
13
|
12
|
12.29
|
14
|
Hospital Beds per 100,000
population (2002)1
|
Doctor : Population Ratio (2002)2
|
Teacher : Pupil Ratio (Primary) (2001)1
|
Teacher : Pupil Ratio (Secondary) (2001)1
|
Post Office per 100,000 population (2002)1
|
Public Library per 100,000
population (1999)3
|
Public Bus Establish-ment per 100,000 population (2000)2
|
Juvenile Offenders per 100,000 population
(2002)1
|
|
Johor
|
190.8
|
1617
|
18.8
|
18.0
|
2.7
|
2.6
|
1.4
|
13.2
|
Kedah
|
141.2
|
1858
|
18.6
|
16.6
|
2.8*
|
3.6
|
0.7
|
19.6
|
Kelantan
|
117.7
|
1545
|
19.6
|
16.3
|
2.1
|
0.9
|
0.4
|
24.4
|
Melaka
|
211.6
|
1075
|
18.0
|
16.7
|
3.6
|
3.1
|
2.2
|
10.4
|
Negeri
Sembilan
|
168.0
|
1236
|
16.7
|
16.0
|
4.0
|
2.3
|
2.4
|
29.3
|
Pahang
|
137.4
|
1912
|
16.9
|
16.7
|
3.1
|
3.1
|
1.8
|
25.4
|
Perak
|
315.5
|
1376
|
17.9
|
17.5
|
3.8
|
2.2
|
1.9
|
24.1
|
Perlis
|
188.3
|
1490
|
17.0
|
14.7
|
-
|
6.8
|
0.5
|
29.4
|
Penang
|
272.7
|
1069
|
19.2
|
17.0
|
2.7
|
3.1
|
1.0
|
25.2
|
Sabah
|
118.8
|
2887
|
17.1
|
17.6
|
1.5
|
2.7
|
0.6
|
8.9
|
Sarawak
|
176.2
|
2499
|
17.0
|
17.8
|
2.9
|
13.4
|
1.7
|
14.9
|
Selangor
|
123.5
|
1543
|
20.6
|
17.5
|
1.8
|
1.2
|
0.3
|
20.6
|
Terengganu
|
133.3
|
2278
|
17.9
|
16.4
|
2.8
|
7.0
|
1.8
|
43.0
|
Kuala
Lumpur
|
333.0
|
407
|
20.4
|
17.7
|
3.6
|
0.7
|
1.8
|
52.7
|
MALAYSIA
|
180.2
|
1406
|
2.6
|
3.4
|
1.2
|
21.8
|
Source: 1 Department of Statistics (2004)
2 Calculated from Population
Census and State/District Data Bank 2003
(Department of Statistics, 2001 and 2004)
3 Calculated from Population Census and Social Statistics
Bulletin 2000
(Department of Statistics, 2001 and 2000)
*
Including Perlis
Hospital Beds
+
|
Doctor : Population Ratio
-
|
Teacher : Pupil Ratio (Primary)
-
|
Teacher : Pupil Ratio (Secondary)
-
|
Post Office
+
|
Public Library
+
|
Public Bus Establish-ment
+
|
Juvenile Offen-ders
-
|
Average Score
|
Rank
|
|
Melaka
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
3.88
|
1
|
Negeri
Sembilan
|
8
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
8
|
1
|
10
|
4.38
|
2
|
Perak
|
2
|
5
|
5
|
8
|
2
|
9
|
3
|
7
|
5.13
|
3
|
Perlis
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
1
|
-
|
3
|
10
|
11
|
5.71
|
4
|
Sarawak
|
7
|
13
|
3
|
11
|
5
|
1
|
5
|
4
|
6.13
|
5
|
Penang
|
3
|
2
|
9
|
7
|
7
|
5
|
7
|
12
|
6.50
|
6
|
Pahang
|
10
|
11
|
2
|
6
|
4
|
5
|
4
|
9
|
6.38
|
7
|
Kedah
|
9
|
10
|
7
|
5
|
6
|
4
|
8
|
5
|
6.75
|
8
|
Kuala
Lumpur
|
1
|
1
|
11
|
10
|
3
|
12
|
4
|
14
|
7.00
|
9
|
Johor
|
5
|
9
|
8
|
12
|
7
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
7.13
|
10
|
Terengganu
|
11
|
12
|
5
|
4
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
13
|
7.13
|
10
|
Sabah
|
13
|
14
|
4
|
9
|
10
|
6
|
9
|
1
|
8.25
|
12
|
Kelantan
|
14
|
8
|
10
|
3
|
8
|
11
|
11
|
8
|
9.13
|
13
|
Selangor
|
12
|
7
|
12
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
6
|
9.50
|
14
|
Comparing
Economic Development Indicators
Table 2 lists the data on
seven (7) economic development indicators for all states in Malaysia. Based on the ranking of these indicators shown in
Table 3, Selangor ranked second for mean monthly gross household income and
fixed telephone line per thousand population and third for percent of labor
force in agriculture. For the other
economic development indicators, Selangor did not rank lower than position
7. This reflects that the economic
growth that has taken place in the state during the past two decades had caused
a tremendous increase in wage as reflected in the mean monthly household income
of RM4400. Other than the federal
territory of Kuala Lumpur, which has the highest mean monthly household income
and the state of Penang with RM3496, the other states could hardly reached
RM3000. The fact that people becomes
more affluent is reflected in the number of telephone lines per thousand
population; whereby the state of Selangor is not far from the state of Penang (rank 1), federal
territory of Kuala Lumpur and the state Melaka (both at rank 3). Being the most urbanized state, Selangor,
(again with Kuala Lumpur, Penang and Melaka) depict the characteristic of a
developed society whereby employment in the agricultural sector
diminishes. This is in-line with the
literature that defines urbanization as the transformation of rural
agricultural societies into industrial urban ones (Reissman, 1970).
Comparing Social Development Indicators
Table 4 lists the data on eight (8) social development indicators for
all states in Malaysia. Based on the ranking of the these indicators
shown in Table 5, Selangor did not occupy the top ranks when compared to the
other states. For teacher: pupil ratio
for primary school, Selangor ranked the lowest with a ratio of one teacher for
20.6 pupils while Kuala Lumpur the second lowest with a ratio of one teacher
for 20.4 pupils. The less developed
states like Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, and Perlis ranked high on this indicator
with a ratio of one teacher for 16 to 17 students. The rapid increase of population due to a
large extent on the in-migration of people from the rural areas and other towns
into Kuala Lumpur and Selangor has certainly increased enrolments and created
tremendous demands on the existing schools.
Other than schools, the rapid increase in population also puts a strain
on health facilities in Selangor.
Comparing hospital beds per 100,000 population, with a ratio of 123
hospital beds, Selangor is third lowest, before Sabah with a ratio of 118 and
Kelantan with a ratio of 117 hospital beds for 100,000 population. For other social development indicators,
Selangor did not rank better than better than position 6.
Conclusion
The overall results
show that the states of Selangor and Johor share the third rank, behind the
states of Penang and Melaka in the economic development indicators. However,
for social development indicators, Selangor ranked the lowest among all the
fourteen states. Based on the
indicators being analyzed, the case study of Selangor had proven that social
development in the state was not at par with the rapidly growing economy and
the extensive physical development that had taken place. It also indicates that the provision of
social facilities could not cope with the rapid increase in population as the
state becomes more urbanized and people become more affluent. Urbanization, a necessary process in becoming
a developed society brought about tremendous pressure on existing social
facilities. Unless the existing
facilities being upgraded, new facilities being built and both actions taken at
the same pace or faster than the population growth, the urbanized state like
Selangor would always lag behind the other states (that are less developed) in
many of the social development indicators.
In the transformation into a developed status and to fulfill the State’s
sustainable development agenda, greater emphasis should be given towards the
social aspects of development. The
National Social Policy introduced in 2003 by the Ministry of National Unity and
Social Development provides a platform for the implementation and management of
social development to be in line with the economic development in the effort to
build a strong and balanced society. To
achieve satisfaction and excellence in community living, each individual is
entitled to enjoy basic amenities and other needs through proper delivery of
social services that encompass society’s welfare, health, education,
employment, housing, values and culture, safety and healthy environment
(Ministry of Unity and Community Development, 2003). The Selangor State Structure Plan 2002-2020
had acknowledged the importance of social development and highlighted that
upgrading the provision of social facilities and infrastructure is needed to
produce a secure and competitive society, one that is peaceful, united, healthy
and prosperous. The State of Selangor is
also fortunate to have outlined various strategies towards achieving
sustainable development objectives in 2001.
Among these objectives, there were several strategies related to
improving the quality of life as stated in Agenda 21 Selangor (Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor and the Institute for Environment and Development, 2001). Since the data being used
in this analysis are for the year 1999-2002,
it would be interesting to look at the indicators again after 5 or 10
years after the implementation of the blueprint for sustainable development in
Selangor and the implementation of policies in the Selangor Structure Plan
since 2002.
References
[1]
Dewan Negeri Selangor (n.d.). Sejarah Dewan Negeri
Selangor. Retrieved from http://dun.selangor.gov.my/v2/ sejarahdun.
[2]
Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2004). State/District
Data Bank. Putrajaya: Department of
Statistics, Malaysia.
[3] Department of Statistics,
Malaysia (2001). Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristics.
Population and Housing Census of Malaysia
2000. Putrajaya:
Department of Statistics, Malaysia.
[4] Department of Statistics,
Malaysia (2000). Social Statistics
Bulletin Malaysia 2000. Kuala Lumpur:
Department of Statistics, Malaysia.
[5] Economic Planning
Unit (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011-2115.
Putrajaya: Economic Planning Unit, Prime Ministers Department.
[6]
Economic Planning Unit
(2006), Ninth Malaysia Plan 2005-2010. Putrajaya: Economic
Planning Unit, Prime Ministers Department.
[7] Economic Planning
Unit (2004). Malaysian Quality of Life 2004.
Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional
Malaysia Berhad.
[8] Economic Planning
Unit (2001). The Third Outline
Perspective Plan 2001-2010. Kuala Lumpur:
Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad.
[9] Institute for
Sustainable Communities (2011). What is a Sustainable Community?
Retrieved from http://www. iscvt. org / what_ we_do/ sustainable_community/.
[10] Jamaliah Jaafar (2004). Emerging Trends of Urbanization in Malaysia. Statistics Malaysia. Vol. 1/2004, pp.
43-54.
[11] Ministry of Unity and Community Development (2003). National Social Policy. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Unity and
Community Development
[12] Mountjoy, Alan. B. (1982). Industrialization
and Developing Countries 5th. edition. London:
Hutchinson.
[13] Shah Alam City
Council (2006). MBSA Booklet.
Corporate Department, Shah Alam City Council.
[14] Reissman, Leonard (1970). The Urban
Process: Cities in Industrial Societies. New York: The Free Press.
[15]Sustainable
Measures Website (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sustainablemeasures.com
/node/42
[16] Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor (2005), Rancangan
Struktur Negeri Selangor 2020. Shah Alam: Town and
Country Planning Department of Selangor.
[17] Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor (2003), Ringkasan
Laporan Pemeriksaan Rancangan Struktur Negeri Selangor 2002- 2020. Shah Alam: Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor.
[18] Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor and the Institute for
Environment and Development (LESTARI) UKM (2003). Agenda 21 Selangor: Selangor’s Commitment to Sustainable
Development. Shah Alam: Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor.
[19] Town and Country Planning Department of Selangor and the Institute for
Environment and Development (LESTARI) UKM (2001). Projek Strategi Pembangunan
Mampan dan Agenda 21 Selangor, Agenda 21 Selangor. Shah Alam: Town and
Country Planning Department of Selangor.
[20] United Nations (1995). Report of
the World Summit for Social Development. Retrieved from http://www.earthsummit
2002.org/toolkits/women/un-doku/un-conf/WSSD%20Copenhagen.txt
[21] United Nations (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
[22] World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common
Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
