In the quest of quality urban living: A case study of urban development in Kuala Lumpur.

In the quest of quality urban living: A case study of urban development in Kuala Lumpur. Dr. Wan Nor Azriyati Wan Abd Aziz, Dr. Noor Rosly Hanif and Zahiriah Yahya Study of Urban and Regional Real Estate (SURE), Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Contact address: wyati@um.edu.my or nroslyhanif@um.edu.my or zahiriah@um.edu.my Abstract Urban development poses a primary challenge to city authorities to improve social, economic and environmental conditions. There has been a widespread recognition that a range of issues lead to the decline of major urban centres as desirable or acceptable places to live. In the 1990s there was a refocusing of urban policy in many developed markets with a shift away from emphasis on property-led regeneration towards a broader based agenda. Current thinking suggests a stronger focus should be placed on the social aspects of urban development. It has been argued that underpinning this challenge is not only limited to deficient of public fund. Rather, limited professional skill pools prevail as one of the other key factor. For many decades, the governance of city of Kuala Lumpur have formulated and implemented a wide range of policies to eradicate squatters settlement in the city in the quest of providing better quality of urban living. Drawing upon a case study of urban development of a former squatter colony area in Kepong, in the capital city of Kuala Lumpur, this study demonstrates that private-public partnership mode of development has not only transform Kepong into new city with complete and organized modern city facilities. Rather, squatters were given the opportunity to enter into home ownership and better quality urban environment. Further insights into the level of satisfaction of squatters involved in this urban development project confirm that this project is indeed successful and sustainable. The study concludes that this urban development has achieved the necessary balance between commercial and social priorities. Key words Urban development, urban policy, squatters, urban environment 1. INTRODUCTION Urban development poses a primary challenge to city authorities to improve social, economic and environmental conditions. It is argued as a process that transforms cities (Harvey, 1985) and also perceived as an essential part of the economy (Madanipour, 2006). There has been a widespread recognition that a range of issues lead to the decline of major urban centres as desirable or acceptable places to live. In the 1990s there was a refocusing of urban policy in 1

many developed markets with a shift away from emphasis on property-led regeneration towards a broader based agenda. Current thinking suggests a stronger focus should be placed on the social aspects of urban development. This has resulted in many city authorities to withdraw from extensive intervention in the economy, and limit their activities to regulation and support (Madanipour, 2006). Indeed, this has produced some flexibility for the market, but it has generated the need for some form of management that can enable an efficient operation of the market and ensure the achievement of a higher quality of life for citizens (Sellers, 2002). This change in the overall governance, from a powerful state to a group of stakeholders, has had overwhelming effects on the management of urban regions (Madanipour et al., 2001). The new challenge emerges is to ensure that these diverse stakeholders can work together effectively and efficiently. Underpinning this challenge is not only limited to insufficient public fund. Rather, limited professional skill pools prevail as one of the other key factor. Thus, public- private partnerships (PPP) are recognised as a typical vehicle to implement and deliver urban development (Xie, 2002). The concept of partnerships has a long history and incorporates different types of alliances among institutions from the public, private and voluntary sector. Forming publicprivate partnerships to assume functions that were formerly public sector responsibilities has potential benefits for both citizens and governments. PPPs can increase competition and efficiency in service provision, expand coverage, and reduce delivery costs. Involvement of the private sector ensures that projects and programs are subject to commercial discipline and sound financial due diligence. Moreover, the private sector can often manage more efficiently the entire supply chain needed to provide and distribute goods and services more effectively than can government agencies. Public-private partnerships can bring new ideas for designing programs and projects, and greater synergy between design and operation of facilities. Most importantly, through public-private partnerships, governments can benefit from the strong incentives for private firms to keep costs down. The question that emerges is: To what extent has the urban development project adopting the PPPs approach fulfill the aspiration of squatters to own a quality urban living home? This paper 2

looks at one particular PPPs project in Kuala Lumpur, the development of former squatters colony of Kepong area in Kuala Lumpur, and at the complexities of the processes of development from an unorganised settlement to a popular new neighbourhood known as Kepong Magna. The research undertaken formed part of a larger study into the phenomenon of the urban development in Kuala Lumpur. Kepong Magna is one of the case studies included in this research as it was one of the biggest Chinese squatters settlements in Kuala Lumpur. The paper first provides the range of policies formulated and implemented by the City Hall of Kuala Lumpur, the governance of city of Kuala Lumpur to eradicate squatters settlement in the city in the quest of providing a better quality of urban living. It then moves to examine the background of the development of Kepong Magna Park. In particular, the paper investigated the level of satisfaction amongst the 100 squatters given the opportunity to own a quality urban living home within Kepong area. No specific criteria were outlined in choosing the households, rather they were chosen because of their willingness to participate in this study. 2. LOCAL POLICIES TO ASSIST THE URBAN POOR TO ENTER HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE QUEST OF QUALITY OF URBAN LIVING The city of Kuala Lumpur, the national capital of Malaysia, is the most developed and heavily populated area in the country. It covers an area of 243.6 sq kilometres (Fauza and Khairulmaini, 2002). Kuala Lumpur was conferred the status as a city of Federal Capital in 1972. As the nation s capital city, Kuala Lumpur is the centre of the nation and its various political, religious, cultural, economic, banking, commercial and financial activities amongst others. The City Hall of Kuala Lumpur (CHKL), the administrative body headed by the Datuk Bandar (Lord Mayor) exerts control over the city. The Prime Minister of Malaysia with the consent of the cabinet appoints the Mayor. The Mayor is a civil servant and thus subject to the rules and guidelines by the Department of Civil Services (DBKL, 2002). The city of Kuala Lumpur is considered to be one of the fastest growing cities in South East Asia. The city population had doubled by year 2000 compared to year 1970. It has a population of about 1.4 million, with a density of about 5,600 persons per sq. kilometre in 2000 (Fauza and Khairulmaini, 2002: 37). The consequent rapid economic growth that has averaged an impressive 8 per cent per annum in the past decade has made the city become the centre of 3

rural-urban migration. As a consequent of this swift increase of population, it has created a challenge to the CHKL, particularly in provision of housing for the low-income households. It is noteworthy to mention that Kuala Lumpur portrays a reverse of national features in its ethnic composition. Rather than the Malay who is the son of the soil dominates the city, it is in fact dominates by the Chinese population who were brought in by the former colony. Hence, ethnically in contrast to the composition of Malaysia s population where the Malay is the prevailing ethnic group, the Chinese dominate the population of Kuala Lumpur. CHKL has established a wide range of low-income housing programs in meeting the challenge to provide housing for low-income households. The role of CHKL in assisting low-income households to enter home ownership evolved from being an enabler during the early post independence to a distinctive provider role after the establishment of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970s. The shift of the role of the state from enabler to provider, as practised by Singapore and Hong Kong (Doling, 2002), was part of the social agenda to create political stability amongst a mixed ethnic population (Agus, 2002). The direct participation by the state as provider as exemplified by Singapore and Hong Kong is perceived to be more successful (Mitlin, 2001) in meeting the needs of the low-income group. Nevertheless, when the country s economy was considered relatively matured, CHKL began to relinquish this role as provider and instead, shifted the role to the market. To a certain degree, this issue on the changing roles of the state summarises as hollowing out (Edgar et al, 2002) is one of the pathways. It involved the responsibilities dissociate from of state downward to private sectors. Edgar et al (2002) elaborated that in some developing countries, the downward transfer witnesses a greater role to NGOs and the voluntary sector, with the scale of this hollowing out process varying from country to country. Malaysia has been particularly successful in encouraging the private sector to be involved in solving the housing problems of lower income people, by producing large numbers of low cost housing. Low cost housing in Malaysia context refers to the houses with selling prices fixed by the government as range from RM25,000 (about USD $3,500) to RM42,000 (USD $ 6,000) per unit depending on the location of the development (Wan and Noor, 2005). Table 1 illustrates the four-tier pricing for low cost housing in Malaysia. The price guideline introduced by the state to replace the original price which was fixed at ceiling price at RM25,000 regardless of the location is to improve the quality of low cost houses (MHLG, 1998). The state has also 4

specified that effective from June 1998 each low cost housing unit must have a minimum builtup area of between 48 to 60 square metres accommodating a minimum three bedrooms, a living and dining area, a kitchen and separate bathroom and w.c. (MHLG, 1998). It is perceived that this concept is able to accommodate an average household of five members. Table 1: SELLING PRICE PER UNIT (RM) 42,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 Four-tier pricing for low cost housing LOCATION (LAND COST PER SQ. METRES) MONTHLY INCOME OF TARGET GROUP (RM) A: Cities and major towns (RM45 and above) 1,200 to 1,500 B: Major towns and fringes (RM15 RM44) TYPE OF SUITABLE HOUSES More than five storey flats 1,000 to1,350 Five storey flats C: Small towns (RM10 to RM14) 850 to 1,200 Terrace and Cluster D: Rural areas (less than RM10) 750 to 1,000 Terrace and cluster Source: Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 1998. The evolution of the role of the state has affected the programmes established by CHKL. The establishment of a policy mix in meeting the housing needs of the low-income households has been driven by the experiences as both provider and enabler. CHKL has established a wide series of low-income housing programs in meeting the challenge to provide housing for lowincome households. The programs illustrate a mixed strategy rather than relying solely on either the public or private sector. The establishment of a policy mix in meeting the housing needs of the low-income households has been driven by the experiences as both provider and enabler. Explicitly, the authority in responding to the needs of these low-income households outlined eight key programmes (JPEKS, 1998). Each of these programmes is described as follows. a. Housing programme for hardcore poor The programme is introduced under the National Development Policy (1991-2000), a policy established as a continuation of the former New Economic Policy (NEP) with the key aim to reduce the incidence of hardcore poverty to 0.5 per cent by 2000. Hardcore poor in Kuala Lumpur refer to those households earning a monthly income below RM500 (about US$ 150). This special housing programme pioneered by CHKL constituted low cost houses meant for 5

renting at a subsidised rate. This policy of assisting the hard core poor in city of Kuala Lumpur has been supported by the federal government by providing funding and grants aid to CHKL to construct the units provided under this program. b. Housing provided by developer through planning permission (30% - 50% low and low medium quota) This programme also exemplified a response to the national housing policy implemented during the Fourth Malaysia Plan (1981-1985). Briefly, it involved low-cost housing program whereby private developers have to provide at least 30 per cent low cost housing in their housing development as planning obligation. The programme represents a significant role of state as an enabler rather than provider in meeting the housing needs by the urban poor. The active participation of the private sector in providing housing for the low income group has been made possible by legislation provided under the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 (Act 267) and Town and Country Planning 1976 (Act 172). Section 20 of these acts clearly prohibits any development without planning permission. In terms of the key aim of the program, unlike the houses provided under the earlier program, the low cost units constructed through these programmes are designed for sale to those urban poor provided they meet the requirements as an eligible purchaser. c. Privatisation and joint venture project City Hall of Kuala Lumpur started its privatisation of the land development programme in 1983 to coincide with the privatisation policy implemented by the federal government in that year. In this programme, the state played both the role as enabler and provider. CHKL provides the sites to be developed whereas the private sector constructs the units. Upon signing the joint-venture project agreement, CHKL will assist the private developer (now a joint-venture partner) to obtain all the necessary approval required to carry out the development and thereafter jointly monitor the progress of the project. The joint-venture share of CHKL is based on the land value of the sites provided. The project return or profit due to CHKL in most cases is delivered in terms of inkind rather than cash term. Low-cost housing has always been the priority mode of return in-kind. The key aim of providing low-cost units under this programme is to assist the urban poor to enter home ownership. 6

d. Joint venture project with Employees Provident Fund (EPF) This programme is considered distinct from a normal joint venture project between public and private sector. EPF is a government body, thus this type of joint venture project demonstrate a public-and-public joint venture program undertaken to provide housing. The program comprises not only low-cost housing but also medium and high-cost. EPF provides the site and finances the project with interest rate charged at lower than the market rate. CHKL plans, coordinates and monitors the project including appointing the contractor to construct the housing units. The units constructed are for sale to those eligible. Eligibility refers to those who fulfill the criteria stipulated by Department of Housing Management, CHKL. e. National Housing Company Limited (Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad- SPNB ) The federal government set up this state owned housing company in 1997 with an initial capital of RM1 billion provided by Petronas, the national petroleum company. The company is thus also a government agency similar to EPF. The main objective of establishment of this state owned company is to expedite the supply of low-cost housing to the market. The key role of SPNB is to identify eligible developers to participate in special low-cost housing programme initiated by federal government (Ahmad Zakki, 1997). A substantial fund to construct low-cost housing is provided by the federal government to be monitored by this company. The key aim of this program is to assist private developers in terms of financial capability and support them to construct and deliver the low-cost housings according to the plan outlined by the state. In Kuala Lumpur, the Minister of Federal Territory is responsible to monitor the progress of these joint-venture projects between the private developer and the government. However, since they do not have the technical capacity to monitor the development, CHKL, being the lowest hierarchy in the governance structure and presumed to comprise proficient technical and professional staffs, carry this responsibility under supervision of the above ministry. f. Programme using City Hall of Kuala Lumpur s own housing fund This programme utilised the CHKL s own funds rather than loans or grants from federal government. CHKL is financially autonomous since most of its sources of revenue are derived from the property assessment followed by the charges obtained from planning and development control rather than depending upon grant and financial assistance from the federal government. 7

Thus, CHKL is capable of initiating, planning and developing its own program apart from fulfilling the policies outlined at the federal level. This role as provider witnessed more provision of low-cost housing to the market for sale purpose targeted at first time low-income house buyer. g. Public housing programme The principal objective of this programme is to accommodate the needs of the poor and lowincome group in Kuala Lumpur on a renting basis. CHKL has been constructing public housing programme since 1958 (Chamhuri, 2002). The houses are rented at subsidised rate to the above people whose household monthly income does not exceed RM1,500 (about US$ 430). They are the people who were perceived as those not eligible to enter home ownership of subsidised housing and at the same time not able to sustain renting in the open market. The rental rate imposed by CHKL for this group is much below the open market rental. h. Integrated public housing programme This programme is a special two-prong project designed to solve the squatters problem and to revitalise the weak economy due to Asia Financial Crisis faced by the country. The thrust of this programme is to resettle about 24,000 squatters families to a formal planned housing scheme. The program, launched in early 1999 is initiated by the federal government with City Hall of Kuala Lumpur who participate as one of the many government agencies involved in this integrated programme. Briefly, the programme involved a total 35,000 unit of public housing planned in Kuala Lumpur. This program represents another active role of state as provider in providing housing for the low-income group. Rather than assisting them to enter home ownership, the key aim of this programme is to provide them housing for renting only. However, families from squatter settlements are automatically eligible to purchase housing in low-cost home ownership schemes. The overall intentions of City Hall of Kuala Lumpur s policies to provide low cost housing to the urban poor group demonstrated that it complemented the policies outlined by the national government. Broadly, the above programmes can be categorised into three key groups. First, being projects implemented by CHKL in response to the policy initiated by the federal government using funds from its own sources or grant and loan from federal government. This 8

category of project is state initiated projects that distinctively portray the role of the state as provider. Second, projects implemented under joint venture and privatisation either between public-and-private or public-and-public agency. In this category of project, the state plays a unique role of both provider and enabler. In particular, the state works together with the private sector in meeting the housing needs of low-income people. Finally, the projects imposed on private developers using planning control that reflects the role of the market in providing housing to the urban poor and has witnessed the state withdrawal from being provider to enabler. Having established the role of the state at both the national and local level in providing better quality living to the urban poor, the question arises is to what extent, the policies designed fulfill the aspirations of the urban poor to become part of the quality urban living home owning democracy. To address this question, a survey was carried out on 100 households selected at random in Kepong Magna Park project. Kepong Magna Park was identified as the case study due to the fact that this project has successfully transformed the former squatters colony to a self contained township with complete and organised modern city facilities. 3. LESSONS FROM KUALA LUMPUR IN PROVIDING BETTER QUALITY URBAN LIVING FOR SQUATTERS: A CASE STUDY OF KEPONG MAGNA PARK The development of former squatters colony at Kepong, Kuala Lumpur is chosen as a case study area in an attempt to provide an insight into the success story of urban development project in providing quality urban living to squatters. Yin (1994) argued that the case study provides vicarious experience, in the form of full and thorough knowledge of the particular. Case study is a particular method of qualitative research (Stake, 1995). Rather than using large samples and following a rigid protocol to examine a limited number of variables, case study methods involve an in-depth, longitudinal examination of a single instance or event: a case. They provide a systematic way of looking at events, collecting data, analyzing information, and reporting the results. As a result the researcher may gain a sharpened understanding of why the instance happened as it did, and what might become important to look at more extensively in future research. Yin (1994) further concluded that a case study is a bounded system that exists independently of inquiry. Hence, a case study had been carried out in this study in order to 9

visualise the urban development using PPPs an approach in the quest of providing quality urban living to the urban poor. The key aim of the Kepong development was to eradicate squatters. Kepong is situated about 10 kilometres from Kuala Lumpur City Centre (see figure 1). The subject site comprises an area of about 88 acres. Historically, Kepong is famously known as unorganized squatters colony area consisting of a large number of more than 500 squatters units. This settlement is dominated by the Chinese ethnic. The site is owned by The Mayor of City of Kuala Lumpur. Indeed, prior to PPPs agreement, numerous attempts have been made by this local authority to develop the area but financial barrier posed to be the main obstacle. Figure 1: Location of Magna Park Magna Park Figure 4.7: Location plan of Magna Park Thus, PPPs agreement between Mayor of Kuala Lumpur and Magna Park Sdn Bhd signed on 3 rd September 1996 is greatly welcome not only by the squatters resident of the area, but also by the surrounding neighbourhoods. The agreement stipulated that City Hall of Kuala Lumpur (CHKL) as the land owner was responsible to provide land for development. In return, the market value of the site as determined by professional Valuer is considered as the equity share of CHKL in the PPPS development. To ensure CHKL will obtain this value, a clause in the 10

PPPs agreement clearly spelt out the amount of Minimum Guaranteed Profit (MGP) from the project, of which is the market value of the subject site. Interestingly, rather than accepting the amount in cash, CHKL has instead; translate the amount of MGP to number of low cost units more than enough to accommodate the existing squatters colony on the subject site. This has indeed raised a question within the organisation itself. To this, a statement by the Mayor, that social obligation in terms of enabling urban poor to enter a quality urban living homeownership is more important perhaps answered the question. The PPPs partner, Magna Park Sdn Bhd, as the developer is responsible to construct the development proposed on the project site. All development cost incurred is borne by the developer. In return to this obligation, the developer is allowed to reap the remaining development s profit (after deducting the MGP). Relocation of squatters involved on the subject site is the responsibility of the developer. CHKL only assists the developer in terms of issuing notice to vacate the subject site. Nevertheless, the cost incurred in respect of squatters relocation is actually calculated as part of the project cost. To some extent, it suggests that CHKL as the PPPs partner also indirectly share the cost incurred. Basically Magna Park is part of the mixed development plan designed by Magna Park Sdn. Bhd. Within 5 years from the date of PPPs agreement, the impacts of development in changing the landscape of the former squatters colony is obvious. The completion of about 1,800 residential units, 60 blocks of 4 to 5 stores shop-office and 69 shop lots in the areas have to great extent transformed part of the Kepong area to a modern living complete will all basic amenities and infrastructure (see photo 1). The low cost flat, known as Suria Magna was completed and accordingly relocate the squatter colonies. Most interesting, prior to the construction work on the project site, the developer has proactively offer the affected squatter a low cost unit priced at RM25,000 per unit instead of adopting the ceiling price of RM42,000. Additionally, a subsidy of RM5,000 were also offered to cover any expenses incurred to transport their households belonging to a transit place. During the construction period, the developer relocated all the squatters to temporary long houses or known as temporary transit house within the project site itself. Suria Magna low-cost flat comprises two blocks of 14-storey high rise flat accommodating 504 units of low-cost units. These low-cost units are meant for those squatters who previously resided in the area and affected by the proposed development. To be an eligible purchaser of 11

this heavily subsidised unit, the squatters were required to register with CHKL under the Open Registration System. The aim of this system is to filter those who are not eligible, particularly in terms of total monthly household income. At the local authority level, CHKL has clearly outlined that only those household earning less than RM2000 monthly income is considered as eligible to purchase the low cost units in Kuala Lumpur. Photo 1: View of Magna Park development developed on former site of Kepong squatters settlement. Further field interviews demonstrates that majority of occupiers of Suria Magna are Chinese followed by Indian. These face-to-face interviews revealed that only a small minority claimed they are Malay. These findings reflect the economic and demographic realities of Kuala Lumpur. Indeed, the Malays form the majority of the poor in the city of Kuala Lumpur, and thus qualify to purchase the subsidised units. Yet, significant proportions of Chinese who are the dominant ethnic group in the city were also poor and thus, deemed eligible for low-cost houses too. To a certain degree, this also demonstrated that equal opportunity was given to those eligible regardless of races. Two third (79%) of the respondents claimed they were owners of the units whilst the balance (21%) are renters. To a lesser extent, this suggests that a number of households given the opportunity to enter home ownership at heavily subsidised price have move out for unknown reason. A look into level of income of the respondents perhaps provides the answer to this scenario (see table 2). 12

Table 2 : Income Level of respondents in Suria Magna (N=100) Count status owner tenant race total race total malay chinese indian others malay chinese indian others income below RM1,000- RM2,001- beyond RM1,000 RM2,000 RM3,000 RM3,001 Total 1 1 0 0 2 14 26 11 3 54 9 13 0 0 22 1 0 0 0 1 25 40 11 3 79 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 3 3 9 3 3 0 0 6 3 1 0 0 4 7 8 3 3 21 The findings suggest that a handful of the owner occupier sector earned a monthly below RM1,000. This suggests that perhaps the residents who have moved out are not able to sustain due to insufficient monthly income to pay back the finance required to purchase the house, albeit the units were heavily subsidised. Further findings illustrated the occupation and highest education status of respondents in Suria Magna as follows (see table 3). The key finding of this study demonstrates that almost two third of the occupiers were satisfied of being home-owners. They and were also satisfied with their present living conditions. Although the services provided (maintenance of lift services, cleanliness of the flats) were indeed not high class and frequently received complaints from the occupiers, the accessibility and the locations of Suria Magna seems to have overcome all these short comings. Most importantly, the findings demonstrate that majority of the owner-occupier sector were reluctant to sell their houses. 13

Table 3.0 : Occupation and Status of highest Education of Respondents (N=100) Count Status Owner Tenant Gender Female Male Female Male Total Total Total Total Government Servant Private Sector Retired Self-employment Unemployment Private Sector Retired Self-employment Unemployment Government Servant Private Sector Self-employment Unemployment Private Sector Retired Self-employment Highest Education Status Primary College/ None School PMR SPM STPM university Total 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 3 9 5 0 0 1 6 0 2 1 2 5 9 11 8 3 31 15 17 11 9 52 1 4 3 4 0 1 13 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 1 3 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 4 6 8 7 1 1 27 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 6 3 3 2 5 13 3 2 1 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 3 2 8 Further insight into the level of satisfaction of owner-occupied sector revealed that more than half (65%) of the respondents were indeed pleased with the surrounding environment of Suria Magna flat. Perhaps, the fact that they had established relationship with each other as they were formerly neighbours in Kepong squatters settlement, to a lesser extent, contributed to the above level of satisfaction. To a certain degree, it also plays a role in contributing towards the quality of urban live after being relocated from their former residence area (see table 4). Majorities of the respondents also claimed that they are indeed proud to be part of the home democracy community. The fact that they are owners of heavily subsidised house does not bother them. To them, being home owners is more important. 14

Table 4.0 : Level of satisfaction of respondents on variable factors. Factors Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Size & design of No 18 22.8 22.8 22.8 house Yes 61 77.2 77.2 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.0 Services provided No 46 58.2 58.2 58.2 Yes 33 41.8 41.8 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.0 Surrounding No 14 17.7 17.7 17.7 environment Yes 65 82.3 82.3 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.0 Friends Don t Bother 27 34.2 34.2 34.2 Yes 46 58.2 58.2 92.4 No 6 7.6 7.6 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.0 In sum, the findings of this research demonstrated that urban development has result in the provisions of better quality of urban living to the squatters colony in Kuala Lumpur. It has also demonstrated that PPPs as an approach in urban development has to a great extent eradicate squatters settlements of which is one of the main challenges to the governance of city of Kuala Lumpur. Most importantly, this category of urban poor are satisfied with their new urban living albeit a minor fault at the quality of services provided in maintaining the property. Conclusions The development of Kepong area has significantly improved the quality of urban life of the squatters colony resided in the area. The partnership approach brought more resources to the area. Most importantly, improvements in main facilities have been well put into practice. It could be argued that the success of key actors in negotiating the development profits from the PPPs development to enable the urban poor to own a quality urban living home should be considered as the best practice in meeting housing needs of urban poor. Rather than accepting 15

the profit in cash, CHKL has instead converted the return in cash to in the form of in-kind; low cost houses. The first lesson derived from this study is that the PPPs have successfully met the housing needs of urban poor in Malaysia. To a certain degree, this study demonstrated that the provision of housing for urban poor group in Malaysia is a matter of both the public and the private sector. PPPs have been a tool in encouraging private sector to participate in fulfilling this social obligation apart from being one of the approaches in urban development. Most importantly, the study has illustrated that this development has achieved the necessary balance between commercial and social priorities. The private sector to a great extent understands the role to be played in meeting the housing needs of the urban poor and the public sector understands the implication of subsidised cost to be borne by the market. Thus, a win-win situation prevails where the private sector is able to reap its profit and the public sector to fulfill the obligations to achieve democracy in the home ownership particularly for the urban poor in the context of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. To the main question on the level of satisfaction of urban poor given the opportunity to own a quality urban living, the answer is obvious. Even though it has not reached an absolute 100% satisfaction, majority professed their satisfaction of this new urban living. The size and design of their new home, their surrounding environment and neighbours are amongst the factors that rated highly in respect of level of satisfaction of former squatters of Kepong area. These factors are amongst the most critical factors that contribute towards quality urban living. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction in the quality of services provided in maintaining their high rise building emerged as the one of the main factor that contributes towards the failure to achieve an absolute 100 percent satisfaction. Perhaps future research should address this issue in the quest of providing a quality urban living to the urban poor. REFERENCES: Ahmad Zakki, Y. 1997. Government Housing Policies and Incentives: The government viewpoint, in Cagamas Berhad. Housing the Nation: A Definitive Study, Kuala Lumpur: Cagamas Berhad, pp 189-208. Agus, Mohd Razali, Doling, J., Lee, Dong-Sung.2002. Housing Policy Systems in South and East Asia, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 16

Castells, M.: The city and the Grassroots. London: Edward Arnold, 1983 Chamhuri Siwar. 2002. Urban Poverty Alleviaiton and the Financial Crisis: Issues, Problems, Prospects and Challenges in Sharifah, N., Aishah, E. and Nobaya, A. (eds.) in Cities in the 21 st Century: Urban Issues and Challenge. Malaysia; UPM ; 148-167 DBKL, 2002. Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan, Kuala Lumpur, Government Printers. Doling, J.: Housing Policies and the Little Tigers: how do they compare with other industrialized countries? Housing Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2; 229-250.London: Carfax Publishing, 1999 Edgar, B., Doherty, J. and Meert, H 2002. Access to Housing. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Fauza, A.G. and Khairulmaini, O. S., in Sharifah Norazizan, S.A.A., Aishah, E. and Nobaya, A. (eds.) 2002. Cities in the 21 st Century: Urban Issues and Challenges, Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. (The Growth of Cities, Environmental Decay and the Impact on the urban poor: Experiences and lessons from the city of Kuala Lumpur: 24-45) Fellows, R. and Liu, A.: Research Method for Construction; Blackwell Sciences, London, 1997. Harvey, D., 1985. The Urbanization of Capital, Oxford: Blackwell. Jabatan Perancangan Ekonomi dan Kemudahan Sosial (JPEKS). 1998. Laporan Tahunan. Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur: Kuala Lumpur. Kyvleou, S.: Urban development through PPPs in the Euro-Mediterranean region, Managment of Envireom,ent Quality: An Intetrnational Jpournal, Vol 17, No. 2, 2006 Madanipour, A., Hull, A. & Healey, P. (Eds) 2001. The Governance of Place: Space and Planning Processes, Aldershot: Ashgate. Madanipour, A., 2006. Roles and challenge of urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 11:2, 173-196, June 2006, Routledge. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) 1998. Guidelines on new selling prices for low cost housing, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Housing and Local Government.. Mitlin, D.:Housing and Urban Poverty: A consideration of the Criteria of Affordability, Diversity and Inclusion, Housing Studies, Vol.16. No.4 pp 509-522, 2001 Sellers, 2002 Sellers, J. 2002. Governing from Below: Urban Regions and the Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steele, M. 1990. Homeownership and Low-income Housing Policy in Canada, in Housing Affordability in Canada: Are we addressing the problem?, Occasional Paper 24, Institute of Urban Studies, Winnipeg. 17

Steele, M.1993. The Demand for Home Ownership, in Miron, J., (ed.) House, Home and Community: Progress in Housing Canadians, 1945-1986. McGill-Queen s University Press and CMHC, Montreal, Canada. Unit Penswastaan dan Usahasama (UPU) 1992. Unpublished working paper prepared for Lord Mayor of Kuala Lumpur. Wan, N. A.2007. Low cost housing policy in Malaysia: A challenge in delivery, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Dundee, Scotland. Wan, N.A. and Noor, R.2005. Business partnership in meting housing needs of the urban poor in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Global Built Environment Review, Vol.5, pp39-49. Xie, Q. 2002. Public-private partnerships in urban economic development and prospects of their application in China. Paper presented at the International Conference of Transition in public administration and governance, Beijing, June 15-19, 2002. Yin, R.K.1994. Case Study Research Design and Methods; Sage Publication, Newbury Park,C.A. 18