Kuala Lumpur | Johor Bahru | George Town | Kuantan | Kota Kinabalu | Kuching

Annexes Achieving a System Achieving

of Competitive Cities in Malaysia of Competitive

Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public

Achieving a System of Competitive Cities in Malaysia Annexes

World Bank Reimbursable Advisory Service Social, Urban, Rural, and Resilience Global Practice

November 2015 For further information refer to:

Director General, Economic Planning Unit Prime Minister’s Department Block B5 & B6 Federal Government Administrative Centre 62502 PUTRAJAYA

Website: www.epu.gov.my

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise; without prior permission of Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia. TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables...... 4

List of Figures...... 5

List of Boxes...... 5

1. Data Resources for Economic Analysis (Annex for Chapter 2)...... 7 1.1. Data Utilization...... 7 1.1.1. Data received from the Government of Malaysia...... 7 1.1.2. What have we done with the government data?...... 7

2. Additional Information on Spatial Analysis (Annex for Chapter 3)...... 8 2.1. Standardized Groupings of Land Use Classes...... 8 2.2. Technical Recommendations on the Management of GIS Data in Malaysia...... 9 2.3. Modelling the impact of Malay Reserve Land on housing affordability in Johor Bahru...... 11

3. Institutional Issues (Annexes for Chapter 4)...... 14 3.1. Institutional Mapping...... 14 3.2. List of Meetings for Institutional Analysis...... 81 3.3. Institutional Analysis: Selected Global Case Studies...... 82 3.3.1. Case study one: Decentralization in Indonesia...... 82 3.3.2. Case study two: Decentralization in Mexico...... 85 3.3.3. Case study three: Decentralization in Spain...... 87 3.4. Metropolitan Management – Approaches and Implications...... 89 3.4.1 Why metropolitan management matters for Malaysia ...... 89 3.4.2. The need for metropolitan governance through political transformation...... 91 3.4.3. Metropolitan governance models...... 92 3.4.4. Global experiences...... 92 3.4.5. Metropolitan (regional) authority: city examples...... 97 3.4.6. Metropolitan-level planning through non-governmental organizations...... 98 3.4.7. Metropolitan-level / regional government: city examples...... 99 3.4.8. Consolidated local government: city examples...... 102 3.4.9. Large infrastructure projects: special situations...... 103 3.4.10. Lessons learned and policy implications...... 104 3.5. Mayor’s Wedge Analysis for Greater KL/KV PBTs...... 107 3.5.1. The Mayor’s wedge framework: a standardized framework for city governments...... 107 3.5.2. Overview: Greater Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley PBTs...... 108 3.5.3. Malaysia’s intergovernmental environment...... 110 3.5.4. Economic development strategy...... 112 3.5.5. City service delivery...... 114 3.5.6. Business regulations and licensing...... 119 3.6. Examples of Formulae for Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers...... 120 3.6.1. Formulae for Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Australia...... 120

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 3 3.6.2. Formulae for Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Indonesia...... 122 3.7. Annex 3 References...... 125

4. Social Exclusion (Annexes for Chapter 5)...... 131 4.1. Field Work Implementation Details...... 131 4.1.1. Calendar of events for qualitative field work...... 131 4.1.2. Summary of participants in focus group discussions...... 133 4.1.3. Focus group discussion questionnaire...... 134 4.1.4. Guidelines for focus group discussions...... 136 4.1.5. General Structure of the Focus Group Discussion...... 137 4.1.6. List of agencies in round table discussions...... 138 4.1.7. Agenda: Agency Meeting: EPU November 3rd, 2014...... 138 4.1.8. List of Civil Society Organizations in Malaysia working with youth at risk...... 139 4.2. List of Federal Government Programs for Youth...... 143 4.3. Case Study: England supports affordable housing through land planning and policy...... 147 4.4. Annex 4 References...... 148

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Land use classifications by city...... 9 Table 2-2: Estimated increase in rents and land values when MRL is excluded from urbanization...... 13 Table 3-1: Institutional Map - Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur...... 14 Table 3-2: Institutional Map: Federal Territory of Putrajaya...... 22 Table 3-3: Institutional Map: Selangor...... 30 Table 3-4: Institutional Map: Penang State...... 40 Table 3-5: Institutional Map: Iskandar Malaysia Region, Johor...... 48 Table 3-6: Institutional Map: East Coast Economic Corridor area / Pahang...... 56 Table 3-7: Institutional Map: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah...... 64 Table 3-8: Institutional Map: Kuching, Sarawak...... 72 Table 3-9: Meetings for Institutional Analysis...... 81 Table 3-10: Metropolitan governance models...... 94 Table 3-11: Characteristics of metropolitan authorities...... 97 Table 3-12: Allocation of expenditure responsibilities for metropolitan-wide vs. local service provision...... 106 Table 3-13: Comparing the mayor’s wedge of South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia...... 110 Table 3-14: DAU Variable Weights, 2011...... 123 Table 4-1: Calendar of events for quantitative field work...... 131 Table 4-2: City by city gender participation...... 133 Table 4-3: City by city ethnicity breakdown of participants...... 134 Table 4-4: Educational attainment among focus group participants...... 134 Table 4-5: Structured questionnaire for the study on social inclusion...... 135 Table 4-6: Agencies in round table discussions...... 138 Table 4-7: CSOs in Malaysia working with youth at risk...... 139 Table 4-8: Federal government programs for youth...... 133

4 Annexes LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Malay Reserve Land and FELDA land in Johor Bahru conurbation...... 11 Figure 2-2: The urban economics model on the impacts of Malay Reserve Land...... 12 Figure 3-1: Greater Kuala Lumpur jurisdictions...... 91 Figure 3-2: The Mayor’s Wedge Framework (scope and capacity)...... 108 Figure 3-3: Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley PBTs...... 109 Figure 3-4: Density compared to two transit factors...... 276 Figure 3-5: Greater Manchester...... 118 Figure 3-6: LEPs in the UK...... 119 Figure 3-7 Allocation Process of DAK...... 125 Figure 4-1: City by city participants in focus group discussions...... 133 Figure 4-2: Proportion of focus group discussants working...... 134

LIST OF BOXES

Box 3-1: Greater Vancouver Regional District: An evolutionary approach to regional, district-based metropolitan planning & management...... 99 Box 3-2: New York Metropolitan Region: A legitimized civil society approach to megapolitan planning: the pioneering role of the regional planning association...... 101 Box 3-3: Seoul Metropolitan Government: Leadership from the metropolitan core...... 105 Box 3-4: Selected recommendations for teen and young adult unemployment in U.S. cities...... 114 Box 3-5: Polycentricity and public transport: Los Angeles and Seoul...... 116 Box 3-6: Greater Manchester Combined Authority...... 118 Box 3-7: Regional arrangements for local authorities in the UK...... 119

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 5

1. DATA RESOURCES FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (ANNEX FOR CHAPTER 2)

1.1 Data Utilization

1.1.1 Data received from the Government of Malaysia

»» Population Census: for 2000 and 2010, disaggregated to the mukim level. [data and shape files]

»» Household Expenditure Survey: for 2009/10, data at the conurbation level provided recently.

»» Household Income Survey: for 2012, data at the conurbation level provided recently.

»» Economic Census: for 2010, at the conurbation level, for manufacturing and services.

»» Labor Force Survey: for 2008-2012, at state-level, with rural-urban differentiation.

1.1.2 What have we done with the government data?

1. Population Census:

»» Calculated population density at conurbation level;

»» Constructed the density gradient of each conurbation, which exhibits the population density by distance from the city center;

»» Density gradients reflect the spatial form of cities, shaped by interactions between land markets, public investment, and regulations;

»» Spatial structure can have important impacts on economic efficiency of cities — deficient spatial structure fragments labor and consumer markets, contributes to higher transactions costs by unnecessarily increasing distances between people and places, and increases the length of infrastructure network and as a result raises capital and operating costs.

2. Household Expenditure Survey:

»» Calculated the cost of living in terms of share of transport and housing cost in total household expenditure;

»» Association with productivity of conurbations.

3. Economic Census:

»» The total factor productivity (TFP) by conurbation and industry, and its relation with economic density, education attainment, employment structure (ratio of non-Malay employees), ownership and legal status;

»» Labor share and production structure;

»» Capital intensity, return to capital and access to capital;

»» Industrial specialization of conurbations using location quotient;

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 7 »» Clustering of the six selected conurbations in the “sunset” and “sunrise” industries.

4. Labor Force Survey:

»» Combined with Economic Census data;

»» Analyzed education attainment by conurbation and industry (2-Digit level);

»» Examined how it is related to productivity and household income in respective conurbation and industry.

5. Other data sources: Oxford Economics Global Cities Dataset, World Bank East Asia Urban Expansion Dataset, CEIC Malaysia data, and Global Risk Data Platform from United Nations Environment Programme for calculat- ing:

»» Benchmarking with other large cities in the region;

»» Economic density (measured by value of production per km2 and jobs per km2), industrial structure and productivity;

»» Relation between public amenities and productivity;

»» Capital investment at the state level;

»» Built-up land in urban agglomerations with populations of 100,000 or more from satellites image data;

»» Economic density as measured by GDP per km2.

2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SPATIAL ANALYSIS (ANNEX FOR CHAPTER 3)

2.1 Standardized Groupings of Land Use Classes

6. GIS data on current (“semasa”) land use were obtained as follows:

»» Greater Kuala Lumpur: from DBKL for the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (FTKL), and JPBD Selangor for the eight local authority areas adjacent to FTKL

»» Johor Bahru: from JPBD Johor

»» George Town: from JPBD Pulau Pinang

»» Kota Kinabalu: from DBKK

7. As the land use classes used by each of these data sources varied somewhat, the classifications were standardized as shown in the table below.

8 Annexes Table 2-1 Land use classifications by city

Standardized Greater Kuala Lumpur Johor Bahru George Town Kota Kinabalu Pertanian Pertanian Tanaman Agriculture Penternakan Ternakan Agricultural Penternakan dan Penternakan dan Akuakultur Akuakultur Perniagaan Perniagaan Perniagaan Commercial Area Perniagaan Terancang Perniagaan dan Perniagaan dan Commercial Perkhidmatan Perkhidmatan Perkhidmatan dan Perniagaan PD Hutan Hutan Hutan/Belukar/Paya Kawasan Hijau Hutan/Tumbuhan Semulajadi Tanah Kosong Tanah Kosong Tanah Kosong Semulajadi Tanah Lapang Tanah Lapang Tanah Lapang Green/Open Space Tanah Lapang/Bukit Tanah Lapang dan Tanah Lapang dan Rekreasi Rekreasi Sedia Ada Dikekalkan KL KRKL Industri Industri Industri Industrial Area Lombong Perlombongan Industrial Rizab Lombong ID Bekalan Air Infrastruktur Bekalan Elektrik Infrastruktur dan Utiliti Infrastruktur dan Utiliti Utiliti Awam Infrastructure and Utilities Jalan Jalanraya Pelupusan Sisa Pepejal Pembetungan Infrastructure Pengairan dan Perparitan Pengairan dan Saliran Pengangkutan Pengangkutan Pengangkutan Traffic and Transportation Kemudahan Pengangkutan IU TR

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 9 Table 2-1 Continued Standardized Greater Kuala Lumpur Johor Bahru George Town Kota Kinabalu Institusi Institusi Institusi Kerajaan/ Badan Berkanun Institusi dan Kemudahan Institusi dan Kemudahan Government and Masyarakat Masyarakat Community Facility Keagamaan Tempat Ibadat Keselamatan Kesihatan Institutional Pendidikan Pendidikan Lain-lain Kemudahan Kemudahan Awam Masyarakat INT KBR Perkuburan KKA Perkhidmatan dan Kemudahan Bangunan Other Bangunan Kosong Kediaman Kediaman Kediaman Residential Area Perumahan Terancang Taman Perumahan Residential Rumah Kebajikan KD STG Badan Air Badan Air Laut/Sungai/Tasik Water Bodies Water Bodies Badan Air Buatan SG

2.2 Technical Recommendations on the Management of GIS Data in Malaysia

8. Based on the experience of working with GIS data on land use from five different sources in Malaysia, the World Bank team offers the following technical recommendations for improving the management of GIS data in Malaysia:

»» Standardize the land use classifications, ideally using nested classifications that allow for aggregation (see Annex 3-1 for a summary of the non-standardized nature of classifications currently).

»» Standardize the map projections used. Currently, different data sources use different map projections.

»» Synchronize the data collection schedule across the country, so that data for the same year(s) is available for each city. For example, DBKL has land use data for 2000 and 2010, while JPBD Selangor has data for 2002 and 2008.

10 Annexes 9. When editing land use files, make sure that the integrity of the typology remains intact. For example, to add water bodies, avoid drawing polygons on top of an existing layer, which results in overlapping polygons that will create area calculations errors later; instead, water bodies need to be integrated into the layer.

2.3 Modelling the impact of Malay Reserve Land on housing affordability in Johor Bahru

10. “Malay Reserve Land,” detailed under the Malay Reservation Enactment or ERM, refers to a special category of land situated within the territorial boundaries of a state, which can be owned and dealt over only by Malays or the natives of the state. Limiting access to Malay Reserve Land undervalues the prices of these properties, and puts unnecessary upward pressure on neighboring land prices. As a result there is a limited market for the trading of Malay Reserve Land. Reports suggest that, when the government acquires such land for development or when Malay developers buy the land, they are reluctant to pay a high price or compensation because of the limited market and the lack of financial resources. These buyers may lose interest in the deal since landowners set high prices. As a result, the land remains undeveloped (Omar, 2002).

11. To understand how the segregation of MRL from the land market could potentially affect housing and land affordability, a theoretical framework that reflects the interplay between households’ localization decisions, project developers’ construction decisions and transport costs is required. The standard urban economics model as defined by Fujita (1989) based on the pioneering works of Alsonso (1964), Mills (1967) and Muth (1969) is well suited to conduct such a study. The aim of this study is precisely to evaluate the impact of excluding Malay reserves from urbanization in relative terms compared to a situation where Malay reserves are entirely available to urbanize.

12. In this exercise we use such a standard model and inform it by using real world inputs from Malaysia and Johor Bahru in particular. First, we calculate how much space MRL occupy, identify their locations within the city, and exclude these areas from potential urbanization. According to the data provided by the local government, approximately 14.5% of the land within the conurbation line is MRL, as shown in the map below.

Figure 2-1: Malay Reserve Land and FELDA land in Johor Bahru conurbation

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 11 13. This model aims to explain the variation in land costs in cities and level of real estate prices together with the distribution of households and buildings in an urban area. Classically, it is based on two very simplified, yet realistic, fundamental mechanisms. First, households, when choosing where to live, trade-off between the proximity to the city centre and the level of real estate prices (or equivalently between the proximity to the city centre and the size of the dwelling they will occupy). Second, the project developers (or landowners) maximise their profits and choose to build more or less housing surface in a given place depending on the level of real estate prices. The higher the real estate prices, the denser the developers choose to build. In this model version, landowners are assumed to live outside the city, which means that land rents are not recycled into the local economy as income.

14. In the present study, we use this model with a certain number of simplifying hypotheses. First, we assume that all households commute every day to the centre of Johor Bahru, where jobs are assumed to be located. Second, the model also relies on the hypothesis that all households within the urban area earn the same average income.

15. With a limited amount of data describing the size of the population, average households’ income, the transport system (in this case in a very simplified manner), land use, construction costs, and households and developers’ behavior, the mechanisms described above can reproduce the main features of an urban area in a schematic way. The main outputs of such a model are: rents expressed in currency/sq meter of housing space, dwelling size in sq meters, housing density or equivalently building heights in number of floors and population density expressed in households/sq km. Other outputs can be computed such as land values expressed in currency/sq meters of land. See charts below that exhibit the main outputs of the model.

Figure 2-2: The urban economics model on the impacts of Malay Reserve Land

12 Annexes 16. In this simplified representation of Johor Bahru and without detailed calibration data, the outputs of the model should be considered with precaution. However, although the actual value of each output variable is unlikely to match real values (because calibration is very basic and real world features such as transport networks are absent), their variation when a shock is introduced in the urban system (such as excluding land from potential urbanization) is meaningful and likely to change only marginally with more spatially detailed information.

17. The table below presents the modelling results on the increase in rents and land values for the scenario when MRL is excluded from urbanization. The first row presents the result when the value of ß (the share of income devoted to housing expenditures) is set as 0.16, which is based on existing data for Johor Bahru. The impacts are increase in rents of 1.30% and increase in total land values of 4.60%. The increase is not huge, but neither is it negligable. This is not only related to the size of the MRL in Johor Bahru, but also the location – some of the MRL areas are located quite close to the city center where the rents are high. The following rows in the table present results of the sensitivity analysis with different values of ß.

Table 2-2: Estimated increase in rents and land values when MRL is excluded from urbanization

Value of ß Variation in rents Variation in total land values 0.16 +1.29% +4.59% 0.10 1.26% 4.48%

0.15 1.30% 4.64%

0.2 1.20% 4.29%

0.25 1.12% 3.97%

0.3 1.08% 3.85%

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 13 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 DBKL By laws DBKL By laws Road Transport Act 1987 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Federal Road Act 1959 Act 231 Akta Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (Perbadanan) 1980 Legislation Town And Country Planning Act 1976 [Act 172] Amendments Publicly owned Corporations MRT Corp KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) MyRapid (LRT & Monorail) Private Developers Private Concessionaire Data Depository Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Regulator Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Maintenance / Service Delivery Publicly owned Corporations MRT Corp KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) MyRapid (LRT & Monorail) Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) OR Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) OR Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Ministry of Works Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Design Planning Jabatan Perancangan Fizikal Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Works Ministry of Works Policy Selangor State Government Institutional Mapping INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES (ANNEXES FOR CHAPTER 4) Rail Network & Stations Bus Network & Stations Private Parking Transport Network Public Parking Municipal Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use 3. 3.1 Table 3-1: Institutional Map - Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur

14 Annexes Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Local Government Act (1976): (Peninsular) Town and Country Planning Act 1976 MBPJ EarthWorks By Law (MPSJ) 2007 Drainage Works Act 1954 (1988) DBKL By laws Legislation DBKL By laws Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Data Depository Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Regulator Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Construction / Implementation Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Municipal OR Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Design Planning Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Federal Territories Policy Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Ministry of Federal Territories Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) Pedestrian Network Layers of the City Taxis Other Land Public Transport Airports Cycling Network

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 15 Act 672 Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 Local Government (Amendment) Act 2007 Act 672 Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (effluent) Akta Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (Akta 673) Akta Perkhidmatan Pembetungan 1993 (Act 508) Act 654 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Legislation

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Data Depository Indah Water Konsortium (IWK)

Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Regulator Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Dewan Bandar Kuala Lumpur ( DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territory Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Concessionaire Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Construction / Implementation Indah Water Konsortium (IWK)

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Design Planning Jabatan Perkhidmatan Pembentungan (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Governmen Policy Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission Continued Solid Waste (Disposal - Private) Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Solid Waste (Collection) Layers of the City Sewerage Table 3-1

16 Annexes GAS SUPPLY ACT 1993 Act 610 Energy Commission Act 2001 Act 447 Electricity Supply Act 1990 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) Act 654 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Act 655 Water Service Industry Act 2006 Legislation Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Data Depository Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Bhd (Syabas), Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd (PNSB), Konsortium Abbas Sdn Bhd (Abbas) and Syarikat Pengeluar Air Selangor Holdings Bhd (Splash). Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Regulator Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Telecommunications Companies Tenaga Nasional Berhad OR Private Developer Construction / Implementation Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (SYABAS) Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Design Planning Jabatan Bekalan Air (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Suruhanjaya Tenaga Policy Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Public Buildings and Core Urban Services Telecommunications Network Gas Supply Electricity Network (Distribution) Layers of the City Water

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 17 Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) Legislation Data Depository Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Health Regulator Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories AND/OR Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Maintenance / Service Delivery Construction / Implementation Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Design Planning Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Policy Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Home Affairs AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Continued Schools Institute of Higher Learning Hospitals and Medical Care Fire Stations Layers of the City Public Markets & Hawkers Open Spaces & Public Parks Police Stations Table 3-1

18 Annexes Act 308 Child Care Centre Act 1984 Legislation Innkeepers Act 1952 Hotels (Federal Territory Of Kuala Lumpur) Act 2003 Private Companies PR1MA Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Data Depository

Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Regulator Ministry of Tourism & Culture Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories JMB JMB JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Business Owner Construction / Implementation

Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories PR1MA Jabatan Perumahan Negara Private Companies Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Design Planning Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Jabatan Perumahan Negara Jabatan Perumahan Negara Jabatan Perumahan Negara Ministry of Federal Territories Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Policy Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Tourism & Culture Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc) Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) PR1MA (Private) Public Servant Housing (PPA1M) Rumah Wilayah Persekutuan (Federal Housing) Advertisements Homes, Nurseries & Kindergardens Layers of the City Libraries Art & Cultural Centers Hotels

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 19 National Heritage Act 2005 Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 Uniform Building By Laws Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 Uniform Building By Laws Building And Common Property (Maintenance And Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 Uniform Building By Laws Building And Common Property (Maintenance And Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] Legislation Section 144, Local Government Act 1976 Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Data Depository Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Regulator Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Private Owners/ JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Owners/ JMB Construction / Implementation Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Developers Design Planning Private Developers Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Policy Property Management & Land Valuation Department (DBKL) Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Continued Heritage Buildings Public Buildings Residential Layers of the City Land Valuations (DBKL Land) Land Valuations (Federal Land) Building Control Commercial Table 3-1

20 Annexes Waters Act 1920 (Act 418) National Forestry Act 1984 (Amendment 1993) Protected Areas And Protected Places Act 1959 National Heritage Act 2005 Legislation

Data Depository Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Regulator Ministry of Transport (Department Aviation) AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers Construction / Implementation Private Developers Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Design Planning Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Forestry Department Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Home Affairs Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Finance Ministry of Finance AND Multimedia Development Corporation Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Policy Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Forest Reserve Restricted Zones River Reserve Special Reserves / Zones Control Special Economic Zone (E.G TRX Exchange) Multimedia Super Corridor Zones Heritage Zones Layers of the City No Fly Zones (Building Heights)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 21 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Licensing of Private Carparks (Federal Territory of Putrajaya) By- Laws 2002 Road Transport Act 1987 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Federal Road Act 1959 Act 231 Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 Legislation Town And Country Planning Act 1976 [Act 172] Amendments Publicly owned Corporations MRT Corp KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) MyRapid (LRT & Monorail) Private Developers Private Concessionaire Data Depository Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Perbadanan Putrajaya Perbadanan Putrajaya Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Regulator Publicly owned Corporations MRT Corp KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) MyRapid (LRT & Monorail) Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Private Developers Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Maintenance / Service Delivery Publicly owned Corporations MRT Corp KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) MyRapid (LRT & Monorail) Perbadanan Putrajaya OR Private Developers Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Ministry of Works Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Perbadanan Putrajaya OR Private Developers Perbadanan Putrajaya OR Private Developers Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Design Planning Jabatan Perancangan Fizikal Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Works Ministry of Works Policy Selangor State Government Taxis Rail Network & Stations Bus Network & Stations Private Parking Transport Network Public Parking Municipal Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use Table 3-2: Institutional Map: Federal Territory of Putrajaya

22 Annexes

Sewerage Services Act 1993 (Act 508) Act 654 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Local Government Act (1976): (Peninsular) Town and Country Planning Act 1976 Drainage Works Act 1954 (1988) Legislation Land Public Transport Act 2010 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Data Depository Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Perbadanan Putrajaya Regulator Perbadanan Putrajaya Department Of Civil Aviation Ministry Of Transport Perbadanan Putrajaya Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Construction / Implementation Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Jabatan Perkhidmatan Pembentungan (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Municipal OR Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Design Planning Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Federal Territories Policy Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Ministry of Federal Territories Sewerage Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) Pedestrian Network Layers of the City Other Land Public Transport Airports Cycling Network

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 23 Act 654 – Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Act 655 Water Service Industry ACT 2006 Act 672 Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 Local Government (Amendment) Act 2007 Act 672 Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (effluent) Solid Waste And Public Cleansing Management Corporation Act 2007 (Act 673) Legislation

Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Bhd (Syabas), Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd (PNSB), Konsortium Abbas Sdn Bhd (Abbas) and Syarikat Pengeluar Air Selangor Holdings Bhd (Splash). Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Data Depository Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government

Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Regulator Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territory Maintenance / Service Delivery Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (SYABAS) Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government

Jabatan Bekalan Air (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Design Planning Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Policy Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Continued Water Solid Waste (Disposal - Private) Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Layers of the City Solid Waste (Collection) Table 3-2

24 Annexes Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) Market (Federal Territory of Putrajaya) By- Laws 2003 Gas Supply Act 1993 Act 610 Energy Commission Act 2001 Act 447 Electricity Supply Act 1990 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) Legislation Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Data Depository Ministry of Home Affairs Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories AND/ OR Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Regulator Tenaga Nasional Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Telecommunications Companies Tenaga Nasional Berhad OR Private Developer Construction / Implementation Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Design Planning Tenaga Nasional Berhad Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Home Affairs AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Policy Suruhanjaya Tenaga Fire Stations Police Stations Open Spaces & Public Parks Public Buildings and Core Urban Services Public Markets & Hawkers Telecommunica - tions Network Gas Supply Layers of the City Electricity Network (Distribution)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 25 Advertisement(Federal Territory of Putrajaya) By- Laws 2002 Act 308 Child Care Centre Act 1984 Innkeepers Act 1952 Legislation Private Companies PR1MA Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Data Depository

Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Tourism & Culture Regulator Ministry of Health Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories JMB JMB JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Private Business Owner Construction / Implementation

PR1MA Jabatan Perumahan Negara Private Companies Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Private Developers Design Planning Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Jabatan Perumahan Negara Jabatan Perumahan Negara Jabatan Perumahan Negara Ministry of Federal Territories Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Tourism & Culture Policy Ministry of Health AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Continued Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc) PR1MA (Private) Public Servant Housing (PPA1M) Rumah Wilayah Persekutuan (Federal Housing) Advertisements Homes, Nurseries & Kindergardens Institute of Higher Learning Libraries Art & Cultural Centers Hotels Schools Layers of the City Hospitals and Medical Care Table 3-2

26 Annexes 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniform Building By Laws Selangor 3.Housing Development (Control And Licensing) 1966 [Act 118] 4. Building And Common Property (Maintenance And Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniform Building By Laws Selangor 3. Building And Common Property (Maintenance And Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] Legislation

Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Data Depository Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Regulator Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Private Owners/ JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Owners/ JMB Construction / Implementation Private Developers Design Planning Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories Private Developers Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Policy Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) Ministry of Federal Territories AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Ministry of Home Affairs Property Management & Land Valuation Department (DBKL) Valuation and Property Services Department. Ministry of Finance Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Residential Land Valuations (Putrajaya Holdings) Land Valuations (Federal Land) Layers of the City Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Building Control Commercial

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 27 National Heritage Act 2005

National Heritage Act 2005 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniform Building By Laws Selangor Legislation Data Depository Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Transport (Department Aviation) AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Regulator Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Developers Construction / Implementation Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Design Planning Respective Ministries Ministry of Finance Ministry of Finance AND Multimedia Development Corporation Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/ OR Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/ OR Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Policy Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Continued Multimedia Super Corridor Zones Heritage Zones Special Reserves / Zones Control Special Economic Zone (E.G TRX Exchange) No Fly Zones (Building Heights) Heritage Buildings Layers of the City Public Buildings Table 3-2

28 Annexes Legislation Waters Act 1920 (Act 418) Earthworks (Perbadanan Putrajaya) By-Laws 1996 National Forestry Act 1984 (Amendment 1993) Protected Areas And Protected Places Act 1959 Data Depository Regulator Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Perbadanan Putrajaya Ministry of Federal Territories Construction / Implementation Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers Design Planning Forestry Department Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Home Affairs Policy Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Forest Reserve Restricted Zones Layers of the City River Reserve

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 29 Public Car Parking By-Laws (MPSJ) 2007 Transportation Order (Car Park Allocation Road) (MPAJ) 2007 Road Transport Act 1987 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Federal Road Act 1959 Act 231 Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 Legislation Town And Country Planning Act 1976 [Act 172] Amendments Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran Private Concessionaire Data Depository Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Regulator Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Municipal OR Private Developers Jabatan Kejuruteraan Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Ministry of Works Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Design Planning Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran Selangor State Government Selangor State Government Ministry of Works Ministry of Works Policy Selangor State Government Transport Network Public Parking State Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network (includes Street Lighting) Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use Table 3-3: Institutional Map: Selangor

30 Annexes Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Private Car Parks Licensing By-Laws (MBPJ) 2007 Private Car Park Licensing (MPAJ) (Amendment) 2007 Private Vehicles Parking Space Licensing By-Law (MPKJ) (Amendment) 2007 Private Car Park Licensing (MPSepang) 2005 Private Car Park Licensing (MPS) 2005 Bylaw For Private Carpark License (MPK) 2005 Legislation KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Data Depository Private Developers Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Regulator Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Federal owned Corporations KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Construction / Implementation Private Developers Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Design Planning Municipal OR Private Developers Selangor State Government Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Selangor State Government Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Policy Selangor State Government Pedestrian Network Taxis & Taxi Stop Other Land Public Transport Airports Cycling Network Rail Network & Stations Bus Network & Stations Layers of the City Private Parking

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 31 Sewerage Services Act 1993 (Act 508) Act 654 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Local Government Act (1976): (Peninsular) Town and Country Planning Act 1976 EarthWorks By Law (MPSJ) 2007 Legislation Drainage Works Act 1954 (1988) Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Data Depository Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) AND Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Regulator Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Majlis Perbandaran Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Construction / Implementation Jabatan Perkhidmatan Pembentungan (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Municipal OR Private Developers Design Planning Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Policy Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Continued Sewerage Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Layers of the City Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) - Non Privatised Table 3-3

32 Annexes

Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 Local Government (Amendment) Act 2007 Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (effluent) Legislation Collection, Disposal And Clearance Of Trash By-Laws (MBPJ) 2007 Collection, Disposal And Clearance Of Trash By-Laws (MPSJ) 2007 Waste Collection And Disposal (MPAJ) 2007 Collection, Discard And Disposal Of Garbage By-Law (MPKJ) 2007 Waste Collection And Disposal (MPAJ) 2007 COLLECTION, DISCARD AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE BY-LAW (MBSA) 2007 COLLECTION, DISCARD AND DISPOSAL OF Garbage By-Law (MPS) 2007 Collecting,Expulsion and Disposal Bylaw (MPK) 2007

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Data Depository Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Regulator Majlis Perbandaran (Municipality) Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation

(National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Design Planning Majlis Perbandaran (Municipality) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Policy Selangor State Government Solid Waste (Disposal - Private) Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Layers of the City Solid Waste (Collection)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 33 Gas Supply Act 1993 Act 610 - Energy Commission Act 2001 Act 447 - Electricity Supply Act 1990 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) Act 654 – Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara ACT 2006 Act 655 - Water Service Industry Act 2006 Legislation Gas Malaysia Berhad (MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Data Depository Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Bhd (Syabas), Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd (PNSB), Konsortium Abbas Sdn Bhd (Abbas) and Syarikat Pengeluar Air Selangor Holdings Bhd (Splash). Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Regulator Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Telecommunications Companies Tenaga Nasional Berhad OR Private Developer Construction / Implementation Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Bhd (Syabas), Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd (PNSB), Konsortium Abbas Sdn Bhd (Abbas) and Syarikat Pengeluar Air Selangor Holdings Bhd (Splash). Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Design Planning Jabatan Bekalan Air (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Suruhanjaya Tenaga Policy Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Continued Public Buildings and Services Telecommunications Network Gas Supply Electricity Network (Distribution) Layers of the City Water Table 3-3

34 Annexes Park (MPAJ) (Amendment) 2007 PARKS BY-LAW (MPKj)( Amendments) 2007 Park (MPSEPANG) 2005 Park (MBSA) 2005 Park (MPS) 2005 Park Bylaw (MPK) 2005 Legislation Hawkers By-Laws (MPSJ) 2007 Markets By-Laws (MPSJ) 2007 Trade, Business and Industrial By-Laws (MBPJ) 2007 Markets (MPAJ) 2007 Hawkers (MPAJ) 2007 HAWKERS BY-LAW (MPKj) 2007 Hawkers (MPSEPANG) 2007 Markets (MPSEPANG) 2007 Hawkers By-Laws (MPS) 2007 Markets By-Laws (MPS) 2007 Hawker Bylaw (MPK) 2007 Market Bylaw (MPK) 2007 Data Depository Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Regulator Municipal AND/OR Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Maintenance / Service Delivery Construction / Implementation Design Planning Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Policy Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Open Spaces & Public Parks Layers of the City Public Markets & Hawkers

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 35 Act 308 Child Care Centre Act 1984 Innkeepers Act 1952 Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) Legislation Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development

Data Depository

Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Health Regulator Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Maintenance / Service Delivery Construction / Implementation Private Business Owner Private Developers Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Design Planning Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Health AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Policy Ministry of Home Affairs AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Continued Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc) Homes, Nurseries & Kindergardens Schools Institute of Higher Learning Libraries Art & Cultural Centers Hotels Hospitals and Medical Care Fire Stations Layers of the City Police Stations Table 3-3

36 Annexes 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniformed Building Bylaw (Selangor) 1986 3. Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] Road, Drain and Building (MPSEPANG) 2005 Advertisement By-Laws (MBPJ) 2007 Advertisement (MPAJ) 2007 ADVERTISEMENT BY-LAW (MPKj)2007 Advertisement (MPSEPANG) 2007 Advertisement (MBSA) 2007 Advertisement (MPS) 2005 Advertisement Bylaw (MPK) 2007 Local Government Act 171 Legislation Majlis Perbandaran Data Depository Private Companies Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Regulator Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Private Owners/ JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Construction / Implementation Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Private Developers Design Planning Private Companies Majlis Perbandaran (Local Municipal ) AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Policy Jabatan Perumahan Negara Lembaga Perumahan & Hartanah Selangor Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Selangor State Government Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Land Valuations (State Land) Land Valuations (Federal Land) Building Control Commercial Layers of the City Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) Public Housing-PPR (State Funded) Advertisements

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 37 National Heritage Act 2005 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniformed Building Bylaw (Selangor) 1986 Road, Drain and Building (MPSEPANG) 2005 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniformed Building Bylaw (Selangor) 1986 3.Housing Development (Control and Licensing) 1966 [Act 118] 4. Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] Road, Drain and Building (MPSEPANG) 2005 Legislation Majlis Perbandaran Data Depository Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Regulator Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Owners/ JMB Private Developers Construction / Implementation Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Design Planning Private Developers Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Policy Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Continued No Fly Zones (Building Heights) Heritage Buildings Public Buildings Layers of the City Residential Table 3-3

38 Annexes Waters Act 1920 (Act 418) Earthworks By-Laws (MPKj) 2007 Earthworks By-Laws (Mbsa) 2007 Earthworks By-Laws (Mps) 2007 National Forestry Act 1984 (Amendment 1993) Protected Areas And Protected Places Act 1959 National Heritage Act 2005

Legislation

Data Depository Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal)

Regulator Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal)

Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers Construction / Implementation

Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Design Planning

Forestry Department Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Home Affairs Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Policy Ministry of Finance Ministry of Finance AND Multimedia Development Corporation State Government Forest Reserve Restricted Zones River Reserve Heritage Zones Layers of the City Special Reserves / Zones Control Special Economic Zone (E.G TRX Exchange) Multimedia Super Corridor Zones State Special Economic Zones (i.e Port Klang Free Zone)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 39 Municipal Council of Penang Island Car Park (Ticket System) Order, 1992 Municipal Council of Penang Island Car Park (Meter System) Order, 1992 Road Transport Act 1987 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 Federal Road Act 1959 Act 231 Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 Legislation Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171) Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1995 (A 933) Planning Control (General) Rules 1990 Act 172 Rules for the preparation of Structure and Local Plan 1989 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 National Land Code 1965 Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran Private Concessionaire Data Depository Jabatan Perancangan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Regulator Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Perancangan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Majlis Perbandaran OR Private Developers Jabatan Kejuruteraan Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Ministry of Works Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Design Planning Jabatan Perancangan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran Penang State Government Penang State Government Ministry of Works Ministry of Works Policy Penang State Government Transport Network Public Parking State Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network (includes Street Lighting) Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use Table 3-4: Institutional Map: Penang State

40 Annexes Drainage Works Act 1954 (1988) Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Municipal Council of Penang Island (Private Car Parks) By-Laws, 1988 Legislation KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Data Depository Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Regulator Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Federal owned Corporations KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Construction / Implementation Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Design Planning Municipal OR Private Developers Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Penang State Government Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Penang State Government Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Policy Penang State Government Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) - Non Privatised Pedestrian Network Taxis & Taxi Stop Other Land Public Transport Airports Cycling Network Rail Network & Stations Bus Network & Stations Layers of the City Private Parking

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 41 Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (effluent) Sewerage Services Act 1993 (Act 508) Act 654 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Sewerage and Sanitary Installation 1970 (by law) Drainage, Sanitation & Sanitary Plumbing 1976 (by law) Legislation Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 Local Government Act (1976): (Peninsular) Town and Country Planning Act 1976 Earthworks 1975 (by law)

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Data Depository Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) AND Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Regulator Majlis Perbandaran (Municipality) Maintenance / Service Delivery Majlis Perbandaran Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Construction / Implementation Majlis Perbandaran (Municipality) Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Perkhidmatan Pembentungan (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Design Planning Municipal OR Private Developers Penang State Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission Policy Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Continued Solid Waste (Collection) Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Sewerage Layers of the City Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Table 3-4

42 Annexes Municipal Council of Penang Island (Parks) By-laws, 1993 Hawkers By-Laws, 1979; Hawkers (Amendment) By-Laws, 1987; Hawkers (Amendment) By-Laws, 1991 Gas Supply Act 1993 Act 610 - Energy Commission Act 2001 Act 447 - Electricity Supply Act 1990 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) ACT 654 – Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara ACT 2006 ACT 655 - Water Service Industry ACT 2006 Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 Local Government (Amendment) Act 2007 Legislation

Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd (PBAPP) Data Depository Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Municipal AND/OR Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Regulator Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Tenaga Nasional Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Telecommunications Companies Tenaga Nasional Berhad OR Private Developer Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd (PBAPP) Construction / Implementation Private Concessionaire

Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Jabatan Bekalan Air (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Design Planning Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Suruhanjaya Tenaga Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Policy Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Open Spaces & Public Parks Public Buildings and Services Public Markets & Hawkers Telecommunications Network Gas Supply Electricity Network (Distribution) Water Layers of the City Solid Waste (Disposal - Private)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 43 Act 308 Child Care Centre Act 1984 Nurseries Act 1984 Nursing Home Act 1993 Innkeepers Act 1952 Education Act 1961 and Schools (General) Regulations 1950 Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) Legislation Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Data Depository

Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Health Regulator Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Maintenance / Service Delivery Construction / Implementation Private Business Owner Private Developers Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Design Planning Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture. Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture. Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Health AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Policy Ministry of Home Affairs AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Continued Homes, Nurseries & Kindergardens Schools Institute of Higher Learning Libraries Art & Cultural Centers Hotels Hospitals and Medical Care Fire Stations Layers of the City Police Stations Table 3-4

44 Annexes 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniformed Building Bylaw 1986 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniformed Building Bylaw 1986 Local Government Act, 1976 (Act 171) Legislation Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Private Companies

Data Depository Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government

Regulator Private Owners Private Owners

Maintenance / Service Delivery Majlis Perbandaran Construction / Implementation Private Developers Private Developers Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Private Companies Design Planning

Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Majlis Perbandaran (Local Municipal ) AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR PeanangState Government Policy Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Penang State Government Jabatan Perumahan Negara Residential Land Valuations (State Land) Land Valuations (Federal Land) Building Control Commercial Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Advertisements Layers of the City Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc) Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) Public Housing-PPR ( State Funded)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 45 Waters Act 1920 (Act 418) National Heritage Act 2005 Peraturan Untuk Kawasan Pemuliharaan & Bangunan-Bangunan Warisan 2009

National Heritage Act 2005 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Uniformed Building Bylaw 1986 Legislation

Data Depository Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal)

Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Regulator Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal)

Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers

Private Developers Construction / Implementation Private Developers/ Respective Ministry

Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Design Planning Respective Ministries Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) State Government Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Policy Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Continued River Reserve Heritage Zones Special Reserves / Zones Control State Special Economic Zones (i.e Port Klang Free Zone) No Fly Zones (Building Heights) Heritage Buildings Layers of the City Public Buildings Table 3-4

46 Annexes Legislation National Forestry Act 1984 (Amendment 1993) Protected Areas And Protected Places Act 1959 Data Depository Regulator Maintenance / Service Delivery Construction / Implementation Design Planning Policy Forestry Department Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Home Affairs Layers of the City Forest Reserve Restricted Zones

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 47 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Road Transport Act 1987 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Federal Road Act 1959 Act 231 Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 Town And Country Planning Act 1976 [Act 172] Amendments Iskandar Regional Development Authority Act 2007 (Act 664) Legislation Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND/OR * IRDA AND/OR Municipal Private Developers Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND *IRDA Private Concessionaire Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND * IRDA Data Depository Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Regulator Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government AND * IRDA Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Developers Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR * IRDA Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Municipal OR Private Developers Municipal OR Private Developers OR * IRDA Jabatan Kejuruteraan Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR * IRDA Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Ministry Works AND * IRDA Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Jabatan Perancangan & Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND * IRDA Design Planning Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND/OR * IRDA Johor State Government Johor State Government AND/ OR * IRDA Johor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR * IRDA Ministry of Works AND * IRDA Ministry of Works Johor State Government AND * Iskandar Regional Development Authority (IRDA) Policy Bus Network & Stations Private Parking Transport Network Public Parking Municipal Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network (includes Street Lighting) Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use Table 3-5: Institutional Map: Iskandar Malaysia Region, Johor

48 Annexes Drainage Works Act 1954 (1988) Land Public Transport Act 2010 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Legislation Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Data Depository Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Regulator Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers AND/OR * IRDA Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Federal owned Corporations KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Construction / Implementation Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) AND * IRDA Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND *IRDA Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND *IRDA Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND *IRDA Design Planning Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Johor State Government Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Johor State Government Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Policy Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) - Non Privatised Pedestrian Network Airports Cycling Network Other Land Public Transport Taxis & Taxi Stop Layers of the City Rail Network & Stations

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 49 Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (effluent) Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation Act 2007 (Act 673) Sewerage Services Act 1993 (Act 508) Act 654 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Legislation

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR *IRDA Data Depository

Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) AND Badan Kawal Setia Negeri Johor (BAKAJ) AND Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Regulator Majlis Perbandaran (Municipality) Majlis Perbandaran Maintenance / Service Delivery

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Municipal OR Private Developers Construction / Implementation

(National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government AND/OR *IRDA Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara Jabatan Perkhidmatan Pembentungan (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA ) Municipal OR Private Developers AND * IRDA Design Planning Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government AND/OR *IRDA Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission AND Badan Kawal Setia Negeri Johor (BAKAJ) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Policy Continued Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Solid Waste (Collection) Sewerage Layers of the City Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Table 3-5

50 Annexes Gas Supply Act 1993 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) Act 610 - Energy Commission Act 2001 Act 447 - Electricity Supply Act 1990 Act 654 – Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Act 655 - Water Service Industry Act 2006 Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 Local Government (Amendment) Act 2007 Legislation

Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Syarikat Air Johor (SAJ) Holdings Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Data Depository Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) AND Badan Kawal Setia Negeri Johor (BAKAJ) Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Regulator Tenaga Nasional Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Telecommunications Companies Tenaga Nasional Berhad OR Private Developer Syarikat Air Johor (SAJ) Holdings Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation

Gas Malaysia Berhad (MMC Company) Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission AND *IRDA Tenaga Nasional Berhad AND *IRDA Jabatan Bekalan Air (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government AND/OR *IRDA Design Planning Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) AND Badan Kawal Setia Negeri Johor (BAKAJ) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Policy Gas Supply Telecommunications Network Electricity Network (Distribution) Water Layers of the City Solid Waste (Disposal - Private)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 51 Innkeepers Act 1952 Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) Legislation Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Data Depository Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health Ministry of Home Affairs Regulator Municipal AND/OR Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Ministry of Education Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Maintenance / Service Delivery

Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Construction / Implementation

Private Developers Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Ministry of Education Private OR Public Education Institution AND Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Bahagian Pembangunan Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs AND *IRDA Design Planning Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Ministry of Home Affairs AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Policy Continued Libraries Art & Cultural Centers Hotels Schools Institute of Higher Learning Hospitals and Medical Care Fire Stations & Services Layers of the City Public Buildings and Services Public Markets & Hawkers Open Spaces & Public Parks Police Stations & Services Table 3-5

52 Annexes 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 Local Government Act 171

Act 308 Child Care Centre Act 1984 Legislation Majlis Perbandaran Private Companies Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Data Depository

Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Bahagian Perumahan Setiausaha Kerajaan Johor Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Regulator Private Owners/ JMB Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Maintenance / Service Delivery Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad Construction / Implementation Private Developers Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Private Companies Private Business Owner Design Planning Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Majlis Perbandaran (Local Municipal ) AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Bahagian Perumahan Setiausaha Kerajaan Johor Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Johor State Government Jabatan Perumahan Negara Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Policy Land Valuations (Federal Land) Building Control Commercial Land Valuations (State Land) Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Advertisements Public Housing-PPR (State) Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc) Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) Layers of the City Homes, Nurseries & Kindergartens

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 53 National Heritage Act 2005 Iskandar Regional Development Authority Act 2007 (Act 664) National Heritage Act 2005 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2.Housing Development (Control and Licensing) 1966 [Act 118] Legislation Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Data Depository Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Regulator Private Owners/ JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Developers Construction / Implementation Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Developers Design Planning Ministry of Finance AND IRDA Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Policy Continued Special Reserves / Zones Control Iskandar Malaysia Heritage Zones No Fly Zones (Building Heights) Heritage Buildings Public Buildings Layers of the City Residential Table 3-5

54 Annexes Waters Act 1920 (Act 418) National Forestry Act 1984 (Amendment 1993) Protected Areas And Protected Places Act 1959 Legislation Data Depository Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Regulator Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers Construction / Implementation Design Planning Forestry Department Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Home Affairs Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Policy Forest Reserve Restricted Zones Layers of the City River Reserve

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 55 Private Car Park By-law (MPK) 1985 Road Transport Order (Allocation of Car Park) (MPK) 2005 Road Transport Act 1987 Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Street, Drainage and Building By-law (Compounding Offenses) (MPK) 1983 Federal Road Act 1959 Act 231 Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 Town And Country Planning Act 1976 [Act 172] Amendments National Land Code 1965 (Act 56) East Coast Economic Region Development Council Act 2008 (Act 688) Legislation Private Developers Majlis Perbandaran OR Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Pahang Jabatan Perancangan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran Private Concessionaire Data Depository Jabatan Perancanagan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND ECERDC Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Pahang State Government Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Regulator Jabatan Perancangan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Pahang State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Pahang State Government Private Concessionaire, Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Pahang State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Developers Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Jabatan Perancangan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND ECERDC AND/OR Pahang State Government Majlis Perbandaran OR Private Developers Majlis Perbandaran OR Private Developers Jabatan Kejuruteraan Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR ECERDC Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Ministry Works AND ECERDC Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Design Planning Jabatan Perancangan Pembangunan Majlis Perbandaran AND ECERDC Pahang State Government Pahang State Government Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR ECERDC AND Pahang State Government Ministry of Works AND ECERDC Ministry of Works Policy Pahang State Government AND East Coast Economic Region Development Council (ECERDC) Private Parking Transport Network Public Parking Municipal Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use Table 3-6: Institutional Map: East Coast Economic Corridor area / Pahang

56 Annexes Drainage Works Act 1954 (1988) Land Public Transport Act 2010 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Land Public Transport Act 2010 Legislation Land Public Transport Act 2010 Majlis Perbandaran Publicly owned Corporations KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Data Depository Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Pahang State Government Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Regulator Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Pahang State Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Pahang State Government Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Publicly owned Corporations KTMB (Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad) Construction / Implementation Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment AND/ OR ECERDC Majlis Perbandaran Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND ECERDC Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND/OR ECERDC Design Planning Pahang State Government Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Pahang State Government Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) Policy Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD) AND/OR ECERDC Pedestrian Network Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) Other Land Public Transport Airports Cycling Network Taxis Rail Network & Stations Layers of the City Bus Network & Stations

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 57 Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation Act 2007 (Act 673) Sewerage Services Act 1993 (Act 508) Act 654 Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Legislation Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (1994) Street, Drainage and Building By-law (Compounding Offenses) (MPK) 1983 Local Government Act (1976): (Peninsular) Town and Country Planning Act 1976 Uniform Building (Pahang) By-Laws 1996 Uniform (Pahang) (Amendments) By-Laws 2000 Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Data Depository

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Regulator Maintenance / Service Delivery Majlis Perbandaran Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan Awam (PPSPPA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) Construction / Implementation

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Jabatan Perkhidmatan Pembentungan (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Design Planning Municipal OR Private Developers Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission Policy Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Continued Solid Waste (Collection) Sewerage Layers of the City Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Table 3-6

58 Annexes Act 654 – Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara Act 2006 Act 655 - Water Service Industry Act 2006 Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 Local Government (Amendment) Act 2007 Act 672 - Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (effluent) Refuse Collection, Removal and Disposal By-law MPK 1983 Collection, Removal and Disposal of Solid Waste By-law (MPK) (amendment) 2007 Guidelines and Policies Regarding Solid Waste Storage System at MPK (approved by MPK Full Meeting No. 1/89 dated 2 February 1989) Legislation

Pengurusan Air Pahang Berhad (PAIP) Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Data Depository Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Regulator Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Maintenance / Service Delivery Majlis Perbandaran Pengurusan Air Pahang Berhad (PAIP) Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation

Jabatan Bekalan Air (Sewerage Services Department) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology & Water (KETTHA) Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Design Planning Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (National Solid Waste Management Department) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara - SPAN (National Water Services Commission) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Policy Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government Water Solid Waste (Disposal - Private) Layers of the City Solid Waste (Disposal - Public)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 59 Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) Wholesale Market By-law (MPK) 2007 Petty Traders By-law (MPK) 1993 Market By-law (MPK) 1990 Control and Monitoring of Food Premise By-law (MPK) 1983 Park By-law (MPK) 2006 Gas Supply Act 1993 Act 610 - Energy Commission Act 2001 Act 447 - Electricity Supply Act 1990 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) Legislation Majlis Perbandaran Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Tenaga Nasional Berhad Data Depository Ministry of Home Affairs Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Jabatan Alam Sekitar (Department of Environment) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Regulator Tenaga Nasional Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Telecommunications Companies Construction / Implementation Tenaga Nasional Berhad OR Private Developer Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Design Planning Tenaga Nasional Berhad Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Home Affairs AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Majlis Perbandaran Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Suruhanjaya Tenaga Policy Suruhanjaya Tenaga Continued Fire Stations Open Spaces & Public Parks Police Stations Public Buildings and Core Urban Services Public Markets & Hawkers Telecommunications Network Gas Supply Layers of the City Electricity Network (Distribution) Table 3-6

60 Annexes Advertising By-law ( MPK ) 1983 Act 308 CHILD CARE CENTRE ACT 1984 Innkeepers Act 1952 Boarding House Procedure (Amendment) (MPK) 1983 Legislation Private Companies Housing Division Pahang State Government Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Data Depository

Majlis Perbandaran Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Higher Education Regulator Ministry of Health JMB Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Education Maintenance / Service Delivery Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital SPNB AND/OR Private Developers Private Business Owner Construction / Implementation

Private Companies Housing Division Pahang State Government Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Private Developers Ministry of Education AND Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) Ministry of Higher Education AND Private OR Public Education Institution Design Planning Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Perumahan Negara Jabatan Perumahan Negara Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Tourism & Culture Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Policy Ministry of Health AND/OR Jabatan Perancang Bandar dan Desa Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Advertisements Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc) Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) Public Housing - PPR (State) Homes, Nurseries & Kindergardens Libraries Art & Cultural Centers Hotels Schools Institute of Higher Learning Layers of the City Hospitals and Medical Care

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 61 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. .Building By-law (Pahang) 1996 (Amendment) 2000 (Amendment) 2007 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2.Housing Development (Control and Licensing) 1966 [Act 118] 3. Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] 4.Building By-law (Pahang) 1996 (Amendment) 2000 (Amendment) 2007 1. Street, Drainage And Building Act 1974 2. Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 [Act 663] 3.Building By-law (Pahang) 1996 (Amendment) 2000 (Amendment) 2007 Legislation Local Government Act 171 Majlis Perbandaran Majlis Perbandaran Data Depository Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran Regulator Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran Private Owners/ JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Owners/ JMB Construction / Implementation Respective Ministries Private Developers Design Planning Majlis Perbandaran AND/OR Pahang State Government Private Developers Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran Policy Majlis Perbandaran (Local Municipal) AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government AND Majlis Perbandaran Continued Public Buildings Residential Layers of the City Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Land Valuations (State Land) Land Valuations (Federal Land) Building Control Commercial Table 3-6

62 Annexes Waters Act 1920 (Act 418) Earthworks (MPK) By-Laws 1992 National Forestry Act 1984 (Amendment 1993) Protected Areas And Protected Places Act 1959 National Heritage Act 2005 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Airport Standards Directive 401 (Control And Denoting Obstacles) East Coast Economic Region Development Council Act 2008 (Act 688) National Heritage Act 2005 Legislation Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran Data Depository Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Transport (Department Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran Regulator Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers Private Developers Construction / Implementation Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Design Planning Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Forestry Department Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Home Affairs Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Ministry of Finance and ECERDC Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran Policy Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran Forest Reserve Restricted Zones River Reserve Special Reserves / Zones Control Special Economic Zone (e.g. ECER SEZ) Heritage Zones No Fly Zones (Building Heights) Layers of the City Heritage Buildings

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 63 Road Transport Act 1987 Federal Road Act 1959 Akta 231, Akta Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (Perbadanan) 1980 1. Article 95D & 95E of the Malaysian Constitution (Sabah does not have to adhere policies determined by the National Council for Local Government & National Land Council) 2. Local Government Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 11 of 1991) 3. Town and Country Planning Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 141) Legislation Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Federal Ministry of Works Private Concessionaire Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Data Depository Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Federal Ministry of Works Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Regulator Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Federal Ministry of Works Private Concessionaire Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Maintenance / Service Delivery Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Federal Ministry of Works Private Concessionaire Construction / Implementation Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Design Planning Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Ministry of Works Ministry of Works Policy Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu State / Municipal Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network (includes Street Lighting) Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use Table 3-7: Institutional Map: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah

64 Annexes LPKP Act 1987 (Amendment 1998)

Legislation Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) AND Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Data Depository Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) AND Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Majlis Perbandaran Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Regulator Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) AND Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Maintenance / Service Delivery Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) AND Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Private Developers Construction / Implementation Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) AND Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Jabatan Kerja Raya Sabah (Department of Public Works) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu OR Private Developers Design Planning Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) AND Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development (Public Transport Division) AND Sabah Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Policy Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Other Land Public Transport Taxis & Taxi Stop Rail Network & Stations Bus Network & Stations Private Parking Layers of the City Transport Network Public Parking

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 65

Akta Perkhidmatan Pembetungan 1993 (AKTA 508) ACT 654 – Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara ACT 2006 1. Kota Kinabalu City Hall (DBKK) Enactment 1996 2. Local Government Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 11 of 1991) 3.The State Conservation of Environment Enactment (1996)

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1969 Legislation Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Data Depository Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Regulator Private Concessionaire Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Malaysi Airports Holdings Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Concessionaire Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (Chief Ministers Department) DBKK OR Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Construction / Implementation Malaysi Airports Holdings Berhad Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu DBKK OR Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Design Planning Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Policy Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Continued Solid Waste (Disposal - Private) Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Solid Waste (Collection) Sewerage Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) - Non Privatised Pedestrian Network Cycling Network Layers of the City Airports Table 3-7

66 Annexes

Akta Perkhidmatan Pembetungan 1993 (AKTA 508) ACT 654 – Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara ACT 2006 1. Kota Kinabalu City Hall (DBKK) Enactment 1996 2. Local Government Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 11 of 1991) 3.The State Conservation of Environment Enactment (1996)

GAS SUPPLY ACT 1993 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) Electricity Board Ordinance 1956 (Sabah No. 27 of 1956) Electricity Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 40) CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1969 Water Supply Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 16 of 1961) Sabah Water Resources Enactment 1998 (Sabah No. 6 of 1998) Legislation Legislation Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah Electricity Sdn. Bhd. (SESB) Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sabah State Water Department Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Data Depository Data Depository Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Suruhanjaya Tenaga Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Suruhanjaya Tenaga Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sabah State Water Department Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Regulator Regulator

Private Concessionaire Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Polis Diraja Malaysia Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Private Telecommunications Companies Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah Electricity Sdn. Bhd. (SESB) Malaysi Airports Holdings Berhad Sabah State Water Department Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Maintenance / Service Delivery Maintenance / Service Delivery

Private Concessionaire Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (Chief Ministers Department) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu DBKK OR Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Private Telecommunications Companies Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah Electricity Sdn. Bhd. (SESB) Construction / Implementation Malaysi Airports Holdings Berhad Construction / Implementation Sabah State Water Department Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development

Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu DBKK OR Private Developers Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Gas Malaysia Berhad ( MMC Company) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah Electricity Sdn. Bhd. (SESB) Design Planning Design Planning Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sabah State Water Department Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Ministry of Home Affairs Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Suruhanjaya Tenaga Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Suruhanjaya Tenaga Policy Policy Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sabah State Water Department Sabah State Ministry of Infrastructure Development Solid Waste (Disposal - Private) Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Solid Waste (Collection) Police Stations & Services Sewerage Open Spaces & Public Parks Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Public Buildings and Services Public Markets & Hawkers Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) - Non Privatised Gas Supply Pedestrian Network Telecommunications Network Cycling Network Electricity Network (Distribution) Layers of the City Airports Layers of the City Water

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 67 Act 308 CHILD CARE CENTRE ACT 1984 Fire Services Act 1988 (Act 341) Legislation Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment Sabah Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Data Depository

Welfare Department Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment Sabah Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Regulator Private Business Owner Private Developers Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Education Private OR Public Education Institution AND Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Business Owner Private Developers Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Ministry of Education Private OR Public Education Institution AND Ministry of Higher Education Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Construction / Implementation Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Private Business Owner Private Developers Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Ministry of Education Private OR Public Education Institution AND Ministry of Higher Education Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Design Planning Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development Sabah Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment Sabah Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Education Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Health AND/OR Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing Policy Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Continued Homes, Nurseries & Kindergardens Hotels Art & Cultural Centers Libraries Schools Institute of Higher Learning Hospitals and Medical Care Layers of the City Fire Stations & Services Table 3-7

68 Annexes Local Government Act 171 Kota Kinabalu City Hall (Advertisement) By-laws 1983

Legislation Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing Majlis Perbandaran Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Data Depository Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing Majlis Perbandaran Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Regulator Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu AND/ OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing Majlis Perbandaran Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Maintenance / Service Delivery Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu AND/ OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing Jabatan Perumahan Negara Construction / Implementation Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing Jabatan Perumahan Negara Design Planning Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing Jabatan Perumahan Negara Policy Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Land Valuations (State Land) Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Advertisements Public Housing-PPR ( State) Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) Layers of the City Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 69 National Heritage Act 2005 2. Local Government Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 11 of 1991) 3. Town and Country Planning Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 141) 2. Local Government Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 11 of 1991) 3. Town and Country Planning Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 141) 2. Local Government Ordinance 1961 (Sabah No. 11 of 1991) 3. Town and Country Planning Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 141) Legislation Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Data Depository Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Regulator Private Developers Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Owners/ JMB Private Owners/ JMB Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Developers Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Developers Construction / Implementation Private Developers Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Developers Design Planning Private Developers Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Policy Sabah State Ministry of Local Government & Housing AND Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Continued No Fly Zones (Building Heights) Heritage Buildings Public Buildings Residential Layers of the City Building Control Commercial Table 3-7

70 Annexes Protected Areas and Protected Places Act 1959 Forest Enactment 1968 (Sabah No. 2 of 1968) Forest (Constitution of Forest Reserve and Amendment) Enactment 1984 (Sabah No. 4 of 1984) Conservation of Environment Enactment 1996 (Sabah No. 14 of 1996) National Heritage Act 2005 Legislation Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sabah Chief Minister Department Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Finance AND SEDIA Data Depository Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sabah Chief Minister Department Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Finance AND SEDIA Regulator

Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sabah Chief Minister Department Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Ministry of Finance AND SEDIA Maintenance / Service Delivery

Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Minister Sabah Chief Department Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Construction / Implementation Ministry of Finance AND SEDIA Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sabah Chief Minister Department Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Design Planning Ministry of Finance AND SEDIA Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sabah Chief Minister Department Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran, Sabah Sabah State Ministry of Agriculture & Food Industry Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Policy Ministry of Finance AND SEDIA Restricted Zones Forest Reserve River Reserve Heritage Zones Layers of the City Special Reserves / Zones Control SEDIA

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 71 State Roads Ordinance 1994 Federal Road Act 1959 Highway Authority Malaysia (Incorporation) Act 1980 Article 95D & 95E of the Malaysian Constitution (Sarawak does not have to adhere policies determined by the National Council for Local Government & National Land Council) Sarawak Land Code, 1958 Town and Country Planning Sarawak Cap 87 Legislation Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Federal Ministry of Works Private Concessionaire Sarawak Ministry of Resource Planning and Environment AND Municipal Council Data Depository Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Municipal Council Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Federal Ministry of Works Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia Sarawak Ministry of Resource Planning and Environment AND Municipal Council Regulator Public Works Department Sarawak AND/OR Private Concessionaires Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Federal Ministry of Works Private Concessionaire Municipal Council Maintenance / Service Delivery Public Works Department Sarawak AND/OR Private Concessionaires Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Federal Ministry of Works Private Concessionaire Municipal Council Construction / Implementation Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Malaysian Highway Authority (Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia) Municipal Council Design Planning Jabatan Kerja Raya (Department of Public Works) Sarawak Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Ministry of Works Ministry of Works Sarawak Ministry of Resource Planning and Environment AND Municipal Council Policy State Roads Federal Highways / Roads Road Network (includes Street Lighting) Private Highways Layers of the City Zoning & Land use Table 3-8: Institutional Map: Kuching, Sarawak

72 Annexes Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Legislation Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council N/A Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council Private Developers Municipal Council Data Depository Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Municipal Council Municipal Council Regulator Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council N/A Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council Private Developers Municipal Council Maintenance / Service Delivery Municipal Council N/A Municipal Council Private Developers Municipal Council Construction / Implementation Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council N/A Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council Municipal Council OR Private Developers Municipal Council Design Planning Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Municipal Council Municipal Council Policy Taxis & Taxi Stop Rail Network & Stations Bus Network & Stations Private Parking Layers of the City Transport Network Public Parking

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 73 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Sewerage Systems and Services Ordinance, 2005 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Drainage Works Ordinance Sarawak 1966 Drainage Works Ordinance 1966 Civil Aviation Act 1969 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 Legislation Sewerage Services Department Sarawak Municipal Council Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Municipal Council Municipal Council Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Data Depository Sewerage Services Department Sarawak Municipal Council Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Municipal Council Municipal Council Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Regulator Sewerage Services Department Sarawak AND/OR Private Management Agency Municipal Council Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Municipal Council Municipal Council Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council Maintenance / Service Delivery Sewerage Services Department Sarawak Municipal Council OR Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Municipal Council Municipal Council Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council Construction / Implementation Sewerage Services Department Sarawak Municipal Council OR Private Developers Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Sarawak Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Municipal Council Municipal Council Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) AND Municipal Council Design Planning Sewerage Services Department Sarawak Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Sarawak Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Municipal Council Municipal Council Department of Civil Aviation Ministry of Transport Sarawak Ministry of Infrastructure Development and Communications Sarawak AND Sarawak Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board (Prime Minister’s Department) Policy Continued Sewerage Drainage & Irrigation (Local Drainage Network) Drainage & Irrigation (Flood Mitigation) - Non Privatised Pedestrian Network Cycling Network Airports Layers of the City Other Land Public Transport Table 3-8

74 Annexes Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Communications and Multimedia Commission Act (1998) Electricity Ordinance, Chapter 50 (Revised 2003) Electricity Rules, 1999 Electricity (State Grid Code) Rules, 2003 Waters Act 1920 (Act 418) Sarawak Water Ordinance 1994 Environmental Quality Act 1974 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Natural Resources and Environment Ordinance (Amendment) 2001 Environmental Quality Act 1974 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Natural Resources and Environment Ordinance (Amendment) 2001 Environmental Quality Act 1974 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Natural Resources and Environment Ordinance (Amendment) 2001 Legislation Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Sarawak Energy Berhad Kuching Water Board Municipal Council Municipal Council Municipal Council Data Depository Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Electrical Inspectorate Unit Ministry of Public Utilities Sarawak Sarawak State Water Resources Council AND Ministry of Public Utilities Municipal Council Municipal Council Municipal Council Regulator Private Telecommunications Companies Sarawak Energy Berhad Kuching Water Board Municipal Council AND Sarawak Wastes Management Sdn Bhd Municipal Council AND Sarawak Wastes Management Sdn Bhd Municipal Council AND Sarawak Wastes Management Sdn Bhd Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Telecommunications Companies Sarawak Energy Berhad Kuching Water Board Municipal Council AND Sarawak Wastes Management Sdn Bhd Municipal Council AND Sarawak Wastes Management Sdn Bhd Municipal Council AND Sarawak Wastes Management Sdn Bhd Construction / Implementation Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Sarawak Energy Berhad Kuching Water Board Natural Resources and Environment Board Natural Resources and Environment Board Natural Resources and Environment Board Design Planning Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Electrical Inspectorate Unit Ministry of Public Utilities Sarawak Sarawak State Water Resources Council AND Ministry of Public Utilities Natural Resources and Environment Board AND Municipal Council Natural Resources and Environment Board AND Municipal Council Natural Resources and Environment Board AND Municipal Council Policy Telecommunications Network Electricity Network (Distribution) Water Solid Waste (Disposal - Private) Solid Waste (Disposal - Public) Layers of the City Solid Waste (Collection)

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 75 Fire Services Act 1988 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Gas Supply Act 1993 Sarawak Gas Supply Services (Operating Company) Ordinance 1995 Legislation Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Home Affairs Municipal Council Municipal Council Sarawak Gas Distribution Sdn Bhd Data Depository Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Home Affairs Municipal Council Municipal Council Ministry of Public Utilities Regulator

Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Municipal Council Municipal Council Sarawak Energy Berhad Maintenance / Service Delivery

Fire Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Ministry of Home Affairs Municipal Council Municipal Council Sarawak Energy Berhad Construction / Implementation Fire Services Department (BOMBA) Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) Polis Diraja Malaysia (Police Department) Municipal Council Municipal Council Sarawak Energy Berhad Design Planning Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry of Home Affairs Municipal Council Municipal Council Ministry of Public Utilities Policy Continued Fire Stations & Services Police Stations & Services Open Spaces & Public Parks Public Buildings and Services Public Markets & Hawkers Layers of the City Gas Supply Table 3-8

76 Annexes Legislation Ministry of Welfare, Women and Family Development Sarawak Ministry of Tourism Sarawak Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Education Ministry of Health Data Depository Ministry of Welfare, Women and Family Development Sarawak Ministry of Tourism Sarawak Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Education Ministry of Health Regulator Private Business Owner Private Developers Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Private OR Public Education Institution AND Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Education Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Business Owner Private Developers Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Private OR Public Education Institution AND Ministry of Higher Education Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Ministry of Education Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Construction / Implementation Private Business Owner Private Developers Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Private OR Public Education Institution AND Ministry of Higher Education Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Ministry of Education Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) AND Bahagian Pembangunan Ministry of Health OR Private Hospital Design Planning Ministry of Welfare, Women and Family Development Sarawak Ministry of Tourism Sarawak Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture Ministry of Higher Education Ministry of Education Ministry of Health AND/OR Planning Division Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Sarawak Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Policy Homes, Nurseries & Kindergardens Hotels Art & Cultural Centers Libraries Institute of Higher Learning Schools Layers of the City Hospitals and Medical Care

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 77 Strata Titles Ordinance 1995 Buildings Ordinance 1994 Sarawak Land Code Sarawak Land Code, 1958 Local Authority Ordinance 1996 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Local Authorities (Advertisements) By-Laws, 2012 Legislation Municipal Council Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Municipal Council AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Ministry of Housing Sarawak Municipal Council Municipal Council Data Depository Sarawak Ministry of Housing State Planning Authority Municipal Council Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) AND / OR Lands and Surveys Department Sarawak Municipal Council AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Municipal Council Ministry of Housing Sarawak Municipal Council Municipal Council Regulator Private Owners/ Management Corporation Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Municipal Council AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Municipal Council Municipal Council Municipal Council Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Developers Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Municipal Council AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Housing Development Corporation (HDC) Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad (SPNB) Municipal Council Construction / Implementation Private Developers Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) Municipal Council AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Private Companies Ministry of Housing Sarawak Jabatan Perumahan Negara Municipal Council Design Planning State Planning Authority AND Municipal Council Valuation and Property Management Department (Municipal) AND / OR Lands and Surveys Department Sarawak Municipal Council AND/OR Police Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) Ministry of Local Government and Community Development AND Municipal Council Ministry of Housing Sarawak Jabatan Perumahan Negara Municipal Council Policy Continued Building Control Commercial Land Valuations (State Land) Traffic Management/ Congestion Control and Monitoring Advertisements Public Housing-PPR ( State) Public Housing-PPR (Funded Federal) Layers of the City Community Centers (Including Sports Facilities, Multipurpose Halls, etc) Table 3-8

78 Annexes National Heritage Act 2005 Regional Corridors Development Authorities Ordinance of 2006 Civil Aviation Act 1969 National Heritage Act 2005 Local Authorities Ordinance 1996 Buildings Ordinance 1994 Sarawak Land Code Strata Titles Ordinance 1995 Buildings Ordinance 1994 Sarawak Land Code Legislation Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Finance AND Regional Corridor Development Authority (RECODA) Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Municipal Council Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Municipal Council Municipal Council Municipal Council Data Depository Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Finance AND Regional Corridor Development Authority (RECODA) Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) AND Municipal Council Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Municipal Council Sarawak Ministry of Housing State Planning Authority Municipal Council Sarawak Ministry of Housing State Planning Authority Municipal Council Regulator Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Ministry of Finance AND Regional Corridor Development Authority (RECODA) Private Developers Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Owners/ Management Corporation Maintenance / Service Delivery Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Ministry of Finance AND Regional Corridor Development Authority (RECODA) Private Developers Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Developers Construction / Implementation Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Ministry of Finance AND Regional Corridor Development Authority (RECODA) Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation) Private Developers/ Respective Ministry Respective Ministries Private Developers Design Planning Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Ministry of Finance AND Regional Corridor Development Authority (RECODA) Ministry of Transport (Department of Aviation)AND Municipal Council Heritage Commission Malaysia AND/OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Municipal Council State Planning Authority AND Municipal Council Policy Heritage Zones Special Reserves / Zones Control Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) No Fly Zones (Building Heights) Heritage Buildings Public Buildings Layers of the City Residential

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 79 Protected Areas and Protected Places Act 1959 Forest Ordinance Sarawak 1958 Sarawak Forestry Corporation Ordinance, 1995 National Parks and Nature Reserves Ordinance 1998 Sarawak River Ordinance 1993 Sarawak Rivers (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 Sarawak Riverine Transport Bill (1993) Legislation Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sarawak Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Data Depository Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sarawak Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Regulator Ministry of Home Affairs Sarawak Forestry Corporation Forestry Department Sarawak Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Departmetn of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Majlis Perbandaran (Municipal) Maintenance / Service Delivery Ministry of Home Affairs Sarawak Forestry Corporation Forestry Department Sarawak Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment OR Private Developers Construction / Implementation Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sarawak Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Design Planning Ministry of Home Affairs Forestry Department Sarawak Jabatan Pengairan & Saliran (Department of Irrigation & Drainage) Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Policy Continued Restricted Zones Forest Reserve Layers of the City River Reserve Table 3-8

80 Annexes 3.2 List of Meetings for Institutional Analysis

Table 3-9: Meetings for Institutional Analysis

Date Meeting Department of Statistics (DOSM) Town and Country Planning Department (JPBD) April 18, 2014 EPU Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA), UKM JPBD National Solid Waste Management Department Department of Housing April 21 Department of Local Government Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers PEMANDU – Greater KL NKEA Ministry of Transport April 22 JPBD Research and Development Division (MURNInets) Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) UPEN Selangor Selangor State Investment Corporation JPBD Selangor April 23 Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) JPBD EPU – Distribution Section Public Works Department (JKR) United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Public Private Partnership Unit (UKAS) in the Prime Minister’s Department April 25 Kajang Municipal Council (MPKj) American Malaysia Chamber of Commerce (Amcham)

UPEN Pulau Pinang Penang State Housing Section (Bahagian Perumahan Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri) June 11 Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang

Majlis Perbandaran Sungai Petani Northern Corridor Investment Authority Invest Penang June 12 Penang State Development Corporation Penang Institute Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai UPEN Johor Iskandar Regional Development Authority June 15 Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru Majlis Perbandaran Johor Bahru Tengah Majlis Perbandaran Pasir Gudang Majlis Daerah Kota Tinggi June 17 Majlis Daerah Pontian

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 81 Table 3-9 Continued

Date Meeting Majlis Daerah Kemaman June 18 Majlis Daerah Dungun ECER Development Council UPEN Pahang June 19 Majlis Perbandaran Kuantan Majlis Daerah Pekan June 20 Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT) UPEN Sabah SEDIA August 26 Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu Majlis Daerah Penampang Pejabat Daerah Putatan UPEN Sarawak Sarawak State Ministry of Local Government and Community Development Sarawak State Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment August 27 Sarawak State Land and Survey Department Dewan Bandaraya Kuching Utara Majlis Bandaraya Kuching Selatan August 28 Majlis Perbandaran Sepang August 29 Perbadanan Putrajaya

3.3 Institutional Analysis: Selected Global Case Studies

3.3.1 Case study one: Decentralization in Indonesia

Case summary

18. Indonesia began the process of decentralization in 1999, and it became effective in 2001. The move towards decentralization was motivated by the desire to enhance public services, community empowerment, and local competitiveness. Political crisis and demand from local areas that were dissatisfied with the centralized system prompted this reform. Since decentralization, power sharing has been based on criteria including the incidence of externalities, accountability, and efficiency. The central government retains authority over foreign affairs, defense, security, judicial affairs, monetary and fiscal policy and religion. Decentralization has had some positive outcomes including increasing economic growth and enhancing public services such as education, health and general administrative process.

Country profile

19. Indonesia is a populous lower middle income country, with nearly 250 million people and a GDP of USD 868 billion in 2013 (World Bank Data n.d.). Indonesia is the largest economy in Southeast Asia. The country’s gross national income per capita has steadily increased from US$4,010 in the year 2000 to US$9,260 in the year 2013(World Bank Data n.d.). Indonesia has managed to fulfill many of its fiscal targets, including a significant decrease in Debt-to-GDP ratio from 57percent in 2004 to 28 percent in 2009 (World Bank Data n.d.).

82 Annexes 20. Geographically, the Indonesia archipelago stretches between Asia and Australia, with a total area of around 1.9 million sq km (CIA n.d.). Indonesia comprises many ethnic groups and religions, and has more than 300 local languages. Indonesia consists of 31 Provinces, one Autonomous Province, one Special Region and one National Capital District (CIA n.d.). Every province is made up of districts and municipalities.

Motivations for decentralization

21. After the economic crisis began in 1997, the politics of Indonesia became unstable. Mass protests forced the Suharto government to undertake democratic reform and a succession of national leadership. Reforms were initiated in 1998 when Suharto relinquished the presidency, and Habibie, the former vice president, became president.

22. During the Habibie period, many local regions called for more autonomy. Some regions even called for secession, which was supported by local officials who want to gain greater control of resources. This pressure made Habibie adopt a decentralization policy that was expected to maintain national unity through the promotion of more democratic government and increased participation of the local people.

The situation prior to decentralization

23. Prior to decentralization, administrative powers were held by the central government in a top-down system. Local governments did not have independence in policy making. Development planning and budget allocations were provisioned by the central government. All provincial and local expenditures were earmarked and were administered through line ministries’ offices at the provincial and district/municipality level (Sjahrir and Katos 2011).

24. The central government assigned local political leaders. Local public participation was weak because policies were created by elites in the central government and sometimes did not suit local needs and cultures.

25. The central government controlled most resources including funding, human resources, and natural resources. The perceived unfairness of natural resources allocations encouraged resource-rich regions to demand secession from Indonesia.

The process of decentralization

26. Indonesia underwent political, fiscal and administrative decentralization. The central government led the process by issuing local governance and fiscal balance laws. These laws made districts and municipalities the key administrative units responsible for providing most government services. The districts and municipalities have no hierarchic relationship to the provincial level. The Provincial governors acted as the central government’s representatives in the region. The full autonomy given to the districts and municipalities limited the power of local regions that might otherwise have had separatist demands if the power had shifted to the provincial level. Politically, decentralization gave autonomy to the newly democratically elected local parliaments (DPRD) to choose the heads of local governments, who would be responsible to DPRD.

27. After three years, the central government reviewed these regulations and their implementation, and later revised them to refine and to clarify the relationship and sharing of responsibilities between the central government, provinces and district/municipalities. The revised law introduced local direct elections to strengthen local accountability, gave provinces supervisory powers instead of powers of coordination, and strengthened their role as representatives of the central government, particularly in the area of planning and budgeting.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 83 The current system

28. Power sharing between the central, provincial and district/municipality governments is based on the following principles1:

a. The externality criterion is the approach of distributing governmental functions by considering the impacts/consequences that arise in the execution of those distributed functions. When impacts that arise are local in nature, then the governmental function in question comes under the authority of the regency/ city; when regional in nature, then under provincial authority; and when national in nature, then under authority of the central government.

b. The accountability criterion is the approach of distributing governmental functions by considering that the level of government that handles a certain function is the level that is closest to the impact or conse- quence of that function. Accordingly, accountability for delivering those distributed governmental func- tions to the people will be better guaranteed.

c. The efficiency criterion is the approach of distributing governmental functions by considering the avail- ability of resources (personnel, funds, and equipment) to obtain the accuracy, certainty and speed of results that need to be achieved in the execution of distributed functions

29. Based on the criteria above, the central government only retains six authorities and responsibilities: foreign affairs, defense, security, judicial affairs, monetary and fiscal policy and religion. However, local governments participate even in these functions. Leaders are elected locally, and local governments have full control of local policies, laws and budgets.

30. Fiscal decentralization has made local government fully independent in allocation of its budget and raising local government revenues. However, most revenues, [e.g. in 2004, 92 percent for districts/municipalities and 51 percent for provinces (Kajian Pengeluaran Publik Indonesia 2007)], are still from central government resources, which makes the decentralization more administrative than fiscal in nature. Since decentralization, local governments have full authority over most sectors, excluding the six central government responsibilities mentioned above. Most aspects of education2, health3 and infrastructure4 sectors became the responsibility of the local government (Sjahrir and Katos 2011). Consequently, local governments have increased spending responsibility without the additional locally controlled revenue base necessary to support extra spending. This creates a gap between revenues and expenditures at the local level. To fill this gap, the central government implements three instruments: (i) resources revenue sharing, (ii) general purpose grants (known as Dana Alokasi Umum - DAU), (iii) special purpose grants (known as Dana Alokasi Khusus - DAK).

31. Revenue sharing comprises tax and non-tax revenue. Local governments have total discretion over the use of allocated funds.

32. DAU is calculated based on the fiscal gap plus base allocation that is determined by local government officer wage. The fiscal gap is calculated from fiscal needs minus fiscal capacity. Fiscal needs are calculated based

1 Explanation of Law No. 32 Year 2004 2 Local governments are responsible for the first nine years of education, which include six years of primary and three years of junior secondary education 3 Local governments are responsible for the majority of primary healthcare services, their financing and human resources. For instance, the operation of health clinics (Puskesmas), which are the main providers of primary health services to the communities 4 Local governments are responsible for district road, transportation, water services and its local water supply utilities.

84 Annexes on indices, including population, area, local GDP per capita, construction price index, etc. Fiscal capacity encompasses local revenue and revenue sharing.

33. DAK is given by the central government for specific tasks, particularly for development expenditure such as education, health, agriculture, forestry and infrastructure. The implementation of DAK is based on the central government’s ministerial guidelines. DAK cannot be used for research, training, administration and official travel.

The outcomes of the decentralization effort so far

34. Decentralization has promoted democracy and increased the ability of local regions to manage their own economic development, through bottom-up planning in keeping with local people’s aspirations. This has increased local public participation and fostered partnerships between stakeholders. Decentralization has increased economic growth significantly (Adi 2005), as well as development expenditure. Decentralization has also delivered more efficient and responsive public services such as education, health, infrastructure and general administrative services. After decentralization, local governments became responsible for the first nine years of education, and expenditures on primary and investments in secondary education became the first and second largest budgetary items for local governments (Sjahrir and Katos 2011). As a result, there has been an increase in literacy rates and years of schooling (Simatupang 2009). Decentralization improved health services, with one additional health clinic (Puskesmas) built per 10,000 of population on average (Sjahrir and Katos 2011). Mortality rates and life expectancy have also significantly improved (Simatupang 2009). Infrastructure development has also increased slightly (Sjahrir and Katos 2011). However, none of these achievements were caused by decentralization alone; they required well-functioning local political institutions, better informed citizens, transparent local government, and effective channels for political participation.

35. The greater amount of power at the district /municipality level encourages local elites to create new district/ municipalities. The central government tends to accommodate the interests of local elites in order to avoid ethnic conflicts spurred by local elites. Between 1999 and 2010, there were 7 new provinces, 164 new districts and 34 new cities (Imron 2011). The proliferation of new local administrative units in the region has had some negative impacts. For example in the forestry sector, decentralization allows a local government to make its own laws and regulations, such as those relating to issuing logging permits. This has caused a proliferation of permits, with little regard for the effect on forest resources. As a result, large forest areas have been destroyed and threatened with conversion to other uses for which local people are not the primary beneficiaries (Resosudarmo 2004).

3.3.2 Case study two: Decentralization in Mexico

Case summary

36. Mexico started decentralization reform in 1983 in response to a debt crisis that left the federal government unable to provide adequate public services, and also to encourage development beyond Mexico City. Studies suggest that decentralization is more successful in areas where local regions have full control over budgeting and less central government funding. Decentralization provides better allocation of local services due to an information advantage through being closer to the recipient. In addition, decentralization also promotes good governance in rural local governments by increasing accountability and entrepreneurship.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 85 Country profile

37. Mexico is the second largest economy in Latin America and is a major oil producer and exporter. Even though production of oil has fallen in the last few years, about one-third of government revenue still comes from the oil industry. Mexico’s economy suffered during the financial crisis of 2008, but its economy has recovered since then through substantial foreign investment. Mexico’s population and GDP are respectively 122.3 million (2013) and USD 1.261 trillion (2013) (World Bank Data Bank n.d).

38. Mexico is a federal country with 32 states and nearly 2,500 municipalities. Local leaders are elected democratically for 3 years and cannot be re-elected. Between 1929 and 1997, the country had a single majority party. Since 1997, there have also been some opposition parties represented in the parliament.

Motivation for decentralization

39. The President Miguel de la Madrid led decentralization reform in 1983, for two main reasons. First, the debt crisis meant the federal government was unable to provide adequate public services, and second, over-crowding of population in the Federal District placed considerable strain on urban infrastructure and the ecological environment. President de la Madrid’s administration hoped that sharing administrative functions and responsibilities with states and municipalities would allow the federal government to simultaneously increase administrative efficiency and decrease its own accountability by shedding bureaucratic responsibilities (Elias 1997).

Situation prior to decentralization

40. Prior to the mid-1980s, although Mexico had a federal system of government, there was in fact no autonomy at the level of states and municipalities. This was because Mexico lacked a strong parliament that could balance the president, who dominated almost all aspects of the political process. The president could control all levels of government, including proposing candidates for the head of local government. In turn, these local leaders ensured the continued power of the incumbent government. The parliament was only able to pass laws that maintained the domination of the government.

The process of decentralization

41. Decentralization reform in 1983 had 3 goals: (i) to decentralize all federal agencies, both administratively and geographically; (ii) to strengthen federalism by increasing the power of states and local government; and (iii) to promote regional economic development (Elias 1997).

42. The first goal was accomplished by the decentralization of all ministries. The process of decentralization was coordinated by the Ministry of Budget and Planning. The second goal was implemented by reforming the Mexican constitution to strengthen federalism. Lastly, the third goal was accomplished by promoting industrial investment in places outside of Mexico City and by providing municipalities the legal and financial capabilities to operate without interference from the federal government.

43. Decentralization granted the municipalities the responsibility for potable water, drainage, sewerage, public lighting, refuse collection, cemeteries, streets, public parks, public safety, and slaughter houses. In addition, the central government also shared revenues through an ‘unconditional fund’ for each state. In 1997 the central government significantly increased the budgets of states and municipalities through a conditional fund that could be used on specific sectors such as social infrastructure, public safety and financial obligations.

86 Annexes The current system

44. The states’ and the municipalities’ budget revenues consist of unconditional and conditional funds from the central government, local taxes, fees and surcharges, grants and loans. The share of the municipality’s revenue is, on average, 63 percent from unconditional funds from the central government (participaciones), 11 percent from local taxes, 10 percent from surcharges and 16 percent from unconditional funds and sale or lease of state owned property (World Bank 1991).

45. Unconditional funds are assigned through the General Participatory Fund (GPF). The central government allocates at least 20 percent to the states and each state allocates at least 20 percent to municipalities. Conditional funds consist of FISM (Fund for Social Infrastructure) and FORTAMUN (Fund for Strengthening Municipalities). FISM is allocated by a formula through the Secretary of Social Development and FORTAMUN is distributed on a discretionary basis.

The outcomes of the decentralization effort so far

46. The overall impact of the 1983 reforms is mixed. Decentralization was more successful in those areas that did not require that the federal government to relinquish its hold on political power (Elias 1997). Consequently, local autonomy over resources was greater in areas that did not require large amounts of federal funding (Elias 1997). For instance, the decentralization of the Ministry of Education greatly improved the ability of the states to establish schools and provide teacher’s education by transferring material and financial resources from the federal to the state governments (Rodriguez 1987). Other research found that fiscal decentralization has been associated with changes in patterns of accountability and entrepreneurship, which tend to promote good governance in rural local governments (Moreno 2013). Conditional funds were found to be important in promoting both accountability and entrepreneurship, while unconditional funds had a negative effect on accountability and no effect on entrepreneurship. Being closer to local populations has allowed for more efficient allocation of resources in rural municipalities (Moreno 2013).

3.3.3 Case study three: Decentralization in Spain

Case summary

47. Spain began decentralization after the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in 1975. The new democratic constitution that was enacted in 1978 offered Spanish provinces the right to to establish autonomous regions, and specified the division of competences between the central government and these autonomous regions. The degree of autonomy in each region is different but generally decentralization gives them full control of education and health. By bringing decision making closer to the people, decentralization has improved efficiency as well as equity.

Country profile

48. Spain’s location between the Atlantic and Mediterranean Oceans and the European and African continents gives it a diverse history and culture. Spain’s total area is around 505,370 sq km, which consists of 17 autonomous communities and 2 autonomous cities (CIA n.d.). Its population and GDP are around 46.65 million (2013) and 1.4 trillion (2013) respectively (World Bank Data n.d.). The country’s GDP steadily increased until 2008, but after the global financial crisis it dropped 3.7 percent in 2009 and continued contracting through the middle of 2013(World Bank Data n.d.). The unemployment rate increased from 8 percent in 2007 to more than 25 percent in 2012 (World Bank Data n.d.).

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 87 Motivation for decentralization

49. After the death of the dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, under King Juan Carlos as head of state, Spain made a transition from dictatorship to democracy. General elections took place in June 1976. During the campaign, all of the political parties included in their programs the elaboration of a new democratic constitution and the establishment of autonomy for the regions (Sanz n.d.).

50. Initially, the idea of decentralization was seen as a solution to the separatist demands of Basque and Catalan nationalities, including Galicia, but was also widely supported by the public. Eventually, the new democratic constitution converted Spain to a parliamentary monarchy in 1978.

Situation prior to decentralization

51. Spain was under Franco’s rule for 36 years following his victory in the Spanish Civil War. During this period, government was highly centralized and the constitution gave the central government ultimate authority to pass all laws. As the chief of state and government, Franco not only appointed and dismissed ministers but his government appointed mayors as well. Local municipal councils were effectively appointed by the heads of families and heads of local corporations.

The process of decentralization

52. The implementation of decentralization was driven by the approval of the new Spanish constitution in 1978. This constitution made Spain one of the most decentralized economies in Europe. It gave the right to Spanish provinces to establish autonomous regions, and specified the division of competencies between the central government and these autonomous regions.

53. The decentralization process in Spain was unique in its asymmetric nature. Every region approved their autonomy statutes and received local responsibilities separately. Regions that had common historic, cultural and economic characteristics, such as Catalonia, Basque, Galicia and Andalusia, received local autonomy immediately after their statutes were approved, while other regions had to wait up to 5 years after the approval of their statutes.

54. The decentralization process can be categorized into 4 phases (Sanz n.d.):

a. First phase (1979-1982): The statutes for 17 autonomous regions issued and commencement of decen- tralization process

b. Second phase (1983-1992): Some responsibilities such as university education transferred

c. Third phase (1993-2002): Transfer of education and health; the central government budget allocation for education and health decreased significantly

d. Fourth phase (2002-2008): Local autonomy reinforced; Basque proposal for new political statutes and the reform of Catalonia statutes

The current system

55. Responsibilities have shifted from the central government to the Autonomous Communities (ACs), which vary in level of autonomy. Every AC has its own statute of autonomy law that outlines the responsibilities of that AC. For example, Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia have special status, with their own languages

88 Annexes and other rights. Andalusia, Navarre, Valencia and the Canaries have more extensive powers than some other regions. Asturias and Aragon have taken steps to acquire language rights.

56. Decentralization creates functional specialization between the central government and the autonomous regions, as follows (Sanz n.d.):

a. Central Government: The functions performed by the central government are social security, transfers to the local regions, defense, foreign policy and justice

b. Autonomous Communities: The functions performed by ACs are health and education

c. Shared authority: The shared activities consist of 2 clusters. The first cluster, which accounts for roughly 13 percent of the central government's budget and 17 percent of the combined autonomous regions' budget, are “infrastructure”, “agriculture, fishing and nutrition”, “employment fostering” and “research, development and innovation”. The second cluster, accounting for roughly 5 percent of the central gov- ernment's budget and 8 percent of the combined autonomous regions' budget, are “housing”, “citizens´ safety”, “trade, tourism and small and medium enterprise”, “culture”, “industry and energy”, and “grants for transport”.

The outcomes of the decentralization effort so far

57. Fiscal decentralization had a positive impact in the health sector. An empirical study found that decentralization was one of the factors that had an influence on the effectiveness of public policies on infant mortality and life expectancy (Cantarero and Pascual 2008). Based on data from 1992 to 2003, infant mortality has decreased and life expectancy has increased. The education sector has also had a positive impact from decentralization. Improvements in efficiency in education have been greater in Autonomous Communities with good fiscal discipline and high level of per capita public revenues (Pena 2009). Decentralization has increased the ‘survival rate’ in school (i.e. the proportion students enrolled in the last course of Obligatory Secondary Education who move on to post-secondary education). The study also found that cost efficiency in Spanish local government increased when the local government had more responsibilities devolved to it (Ballaguer-Coll 2006). This research also found that the decentralization gains improved over time5.

3.4 Metropolitan Management – Approaches and Implications6

3.4.1 Why metropolitan management matters for Malaysia

58. In Malaysia, as in most urbanized countries, many large cities have become more economically interdependent with their surrounding settlements. These areas are often referred to as a metropolitan (metro) area or region, constitute a single economy and labour market, and share a community with common interests. The economic links between the core and the periphery can become so close, that one part cannot succeed without the

5 The research compared the efficiency of municipalities based on the duration of their independency. 6 This annex is adapted from the paper “Metropolitan Management – Approaches and Implications” by Mats Andersson (2012). The paper was based on a module on metropolitan finance and governance in the World Bank Institute e-learning course “Municipal Finances: A Learning Program for Local Governments” the http://einstitute.worldbank.org/ei/course/municipal-finances-learning-program-local-governments All boxes are from the World Bank publication, Webster et al (2006) “Metropolitan Governance in China: Priorities for Action in the Context of Chinese Urban Dynamics and International Experience.”

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 89 other. While political boundaries tend to be fairly stable, urban growth often changes the character of an area. Therefore, a metropolitan area usually includes a number of local government jurisdictions.

59. This mismatch between functional integration and political fragmentation creates a need for metropolitan- level management; to seize opportunities for collaboration, and prevent wasteful competition between local governments. Lack of any formal or informal governance arrangements at the metropolitan scale tends to create fragmentation of services (inefficiencies); “free ridership” by some jurisdictions (due to spillovers); environmental degradation; and underutilization of land with potentially higher value from a regional perspective.

60. Better metropolitan management would help make Malaysian cities more competitive. Currently, local governments are relatively weak, and unable to solve metropolitan-scale problems independently. Urban areas have been growing rapidly, but have struggled to keep up with citizen demand for services. At the same time, Malaysia has a complex, multi-tier system of government that makes it difficult for neighboring jurisdictions to coordinate to provide these services efficiently.

61. The six conurbations examined in this report are spread across multiple jurisdictions, indicating the need for a system of coordination at the metropolitan scale. The Greater Kuala Lumpur conurbation crosses 15 districts or federal territories and almost as many local authorities, the George Town/ Penang conurbation also crosses 15 districts and a few local authorities across three states, the Johor Bahru/ Iskandar conurbation crosses four districts and several local authorities, and Kuantan crosses three districts across two stastes. Each of these districts in turn is made up of multiple mukims. While there are no official conurbation boundaries for the remaining conurbations, looking at the spread of built-up areas suggests that the Kuching conurbation crosses at least two districts, while Kota Kinabalu crosses at least four. While these conurbations typically work as integrated units from the point of view of their economy, housing market, labor market, and mobility patterns, they are not recognized as such from an administrative point of view, as there is no administrative level between the individual districts and local authorities, and the states. Official conurbation boundaries indicate the general extent of a metropolitan area, but do not definitively enumerate which local authorities would need to be involved in metropolitan decision-making, as they do not align with district or mukim boundaries (e.g. see Figure 3-1).

62. A number of metropolitan areas around the world have tried to address similar problems, with varying degrees of success. This annex provides a typology of the main metropolitan-level governance approaches applied internationally, with their pros and cons, and related city examples. It concludes with a summary of lessons learned.

63. Malaysia’s jurisdictions, like Greater Kuala Lumpur in Figure 3-1, are highly multi-jurisdictional, and require collaboration between many local governments in order to function efficiently. Official conurbation boundaries do not clearly indicate which local authorities, or districts, fall within the conurbation.

90 Annexes Figure 3-1: Greater Kuala Lumpur jurisdictions

3.4.2 The need for metropolitan governance through political transformation

64. As metropolitan areas in Malaysia grow, there is an increasing need for coordination and joint decision- making by the area local governments, and management at a metropolitan scale of some functions and services. For example, while activities to retain businesses should normally be left to the lowest level of government, attracting new firms is usually best pursued at a regional level. Strong interdependencies also exist in tourism promotion and management. Solid waste disposal is a typical joint function for efficiency, while waste collection may be managed locally. Environmental impacts transcend jurisdictional boundaries, and inadequate maintenance of storm drains in one area can cause flooding in another (spillover effects).

65. International experience has shown that “there is not one size that fits all” due to local and national differences. (Slack 2007) Some institutional arrangements are established “bottom up”, i.e. through initiatives

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 91 and agreements among the local governments in the area; some “top down”, i.e. by a provincial or national government. The arrangements often evolve, moving from one approach to another over time.7

66. While the system of local administration has a significant impact on the efficiency and equity of a regional economy, it also impacts the accessibility of residents to their local governments, the degree of public participation in decision-making, and the accountability and responsiveness of the governments. Efficiency, equity, and voice are essential for good metropolitan governance (Klink 2008). Slack concludes that the optimal design of government structure depends on which criteria are to be satisfied. Economies of scale, externalities, and equity lend themselves to large government units over an entire metropolitan area; the criteria of local responsiveness and accessibility and accountability point towards smaller government units. The challenge is to find the right balance between those criteria; this may be different in different metro areas.” (Slack 2007) Political factors often determine the choice of governance structure though.

67. Financial considerations are often prime incentives for creating special metropolitan arrangements.

a. Pooling financial or human resources: When synergy will be achieved through joint efforts (area promo- tion, procurement, borrowing, etc.);

b. Cost sharing: When scale economies will be gained by sharing costs for an investment (e.g. specialized equipment) or delivering a service;8

c. Management of Spillovers: When spillovers (externalities) across jurisdictions need to be addressed; e.g. air or water pollution (negative spillover); or if attractions are in one area while visitors stay and spend in another (positive spillover);

d. Reducing Disparity: When significant income and/or service inequality exist between jurisdictions (e.g. different tax base).

3.4.3 Metropolitan governance models

68. The main institutional approaches applied internationally to address these needs are categorized, described, and exemplified in Table 3-10. They range from: (a) ad hoc cooperation, and joint (temporary or permanent) coordination initiatives or arrangements; through (b) metropolitan planning and/or service delivery authorities; (c) a metropolitan-level / regional government; to (d) a consolidated local government through amalgamation of jurisdictions or annexation of adjacent areas by a city. While a municipal government covering most of its metro area facilitates coordination, local offices or sector arrangements may still be needed for efficiency and resident accessibility; cooperation across the area is often still a challenge.

3.4.4 Global experiences

69. International experience demonstrates a great diversity of metropolitan models, particularly across North America (Dodge 1996) and Europe (OECD 2006). Although many megacities are in South Asia, few examples exist of well-established and functioning approaches. Many metropolitan development authorities exist, but

7 Metropolitan management can be viewed as teamwork among local governments, particularly when a bottom-up approach is applied. Effective teamwork requires: (a) a common objective; (b) trust; and (c) that differences among members are viewed as strength, not as a weakness. 8 Alternatively it may be provided by one of the local governments, charging the others a fee.

92 Annexes these tend to mostly be focused on investment planning and land development. In East Asia, China, Japan and South Korea have consolidated and comprehensive metropolitan governments for their megacities (Yang 2009), while in the Philippines, Manila has had various regional governments with strong local government representation and the chair appointed by the President (Laquian 2005).

70. Where institutional arrangements at local levels are lacking or weak, coordination tend to be exercised by national or provincial/state governments (e.g. Lagos State). In Australia public transportation and other local functions are managed by the provincial governments. (Abbott, 2011) While an inter-governmental transfer system can be a powerful tool by a national government to influence inter-municipal affairs, it can also have unintended consequences if not carefully designed. Policies in Mexico in the 1990s, for example, unintentionally exacerbated the level of fiscal disparity in the metro area of Mexico City due to indirect negative effects of transfers on local tax collection, causing further disparity of infrastructure. Mitigating efforts proved to be constrained by legal and political complexities. (Raich 2008)

71. Often local governments do not evolve or cooperate unless they are required to do so by a higher level government, for example to be eligible for certain funding. Many regional planning councils were created following the availability of EU regional economic development grants (OECD 2006). However, this does not always create lasting arrangements. In the United States, it was for many years a pre-requisite for obtaining certain grant funding from the US federal government that the local governments present their needs and solutions through a regional plan. When these requirements ended, the effectiveness of many regional bodies that had been created diminished. (Post 2004) Other incentives for local/regional coordination have been through inter-governmental systems (e.g. in India), enabling legal frameworks (e.g. in France, Poland and Italy), and through financial incentives and political influence (e.g. in the Netherlands).

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 93 Table 3-10: Metropolitan governance models9

Approach Characteristics Pros (advantages) Cons (disadvantages) Examples 1. HORIZONTAL COOPERATION AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (i) Case-by-case joint When joint action puts Useful for areas Usually limited in scope. City candidates for an initiatives local governments in with limited inter- No commitment to international conference a stronger position to: dependencies (or with address needs on an or sports event tend to (i) achieve economies few local governments). on-going basis. apply on behalf of their of scale (e.g. bulk Can be an initial phase metro area. purchasing, contracting, to build trust for further, firefighting, road more permanent maintenance, tourism coordination. promotion); or (ii) to Useful if formal attract firms, events, or arrangements are tourists. constrained by politics or When significant costs prohibited legally. are involved, a cost sharing formula needs to be agreed upon. (ii) Contracting among A local government One government can Access by residents to a Common in California, Local Governments engaging another local specialize in a service, service provider may be USA. E.g. many smaller government for the for the benefit of others affected; accountability local governments are delivery of a service `that in the area. may be weakened or contracting Los Angeles they are responsible for. Useful when one local unclear. County for certain service government dominates in A contracting local provision. terms of capacity. government still needs to Cit of Amman, Jordan is monitor service quality collecting revenues on and coverage provided. behalf of other cities in the country. (iii) Committees, Temporary or permanent Flexible approaches. Usually advisory role Ruhr, Germany Associations, bodies for coordination. only. Turin and Milan, Italy Commissions, Working Often character of Paris, France groups, Partnerships, networks rather than Greater Toronto, Canada Consultative platforms, institutions (OECD, etc. 2006) 2. METROPOLITAN / REGIONAL AUTHORITY “Bottom-up”, voluntary Effectiveness tends to Particularly common in (Special Purpose District) Independent legal entity; organizations by local depend on the level of USA and France. voluntary association created by local governments governments. member commitment. to make better use of their public resources. (i)-(iv) are variations of the approach. (i) Metropolitan Council A forum for coordinated A forum to address Impact depends on: (a) Common in USA of Governments (COG) efforts by member local common / regional the financial and human Sao Paolo, Brazil governments. interests while resources mobilized or Montreal, Canada Decisions need maintaining local allocated to the COG; endorsement of the authority and identity. and (b) the degree of respective local Council Flexible, if allowing coherence on views on (to not undermine members to join/exit at metro issues among the accountability of any time, or participate member councils. the individual local on some subjects only. governments).

9 Privatization or public-private partnerships (PPP) are not specifically addressed in this paper.

94 Annexes Approach Characteristics Pros (advantages) Cons (disadvantages) Examples 2. METROPOLITAN / REGIONAL AUTHORITY (cont.) (ii) Planning Authority A formal entity similar Permanent focal point for Limited impact if only Regional Plan Association to COG to design regional planning. advisory role. for New York metro area regional strategies and/ Specialized analytical Enforcement may require (NGO with advisory role) or exercise planning resources (to highlight significant institutional Portland, USA, with and policy development spillovers, potential capacity to be effective. decision-making power authority. With broad for scale economies, (now an elected metro mandate or narrow inequalities, etc.) government). focus (such as for a river basin). They may or may not have authority to enforce or implement plans. (iii) Service Delivery A public service agency Useful to achieve Effectiveness depends on Greater Vancouver Authority (utility corporation or efficiencies for certain financial authority, e.g. Regional Service District cooperative) owned service(s). to levy user fees, collect (GVRSD), Canada, a by member local Local governments contributions from multi-service public governments. engaged as active owners member governments, corporation (some Responsible for delivery via representation on the apply precept powers, planning functions) of one or more services. council/board. have earmarked Bologna, Italy (Various single-service Can operate as transfers, or tax authorities in an area businesses with authority.10 may create another professional board Access by residents coordination need.) members. may be affected; Can usually levy user accountability may be fees, taxes, or collect weak or unclear. funds from the local governments. (iv) Planning & Service Combination of (ii) & Combination of (ii) & (iii) Combination of (ii) & (iii) Common in France.11 Delivery Authority (iii), i.e. planning and • Grand Lyon delivery of one or more • Communauté Urbaine services (e.g. a Regional of Marseille Transport or Water Authority). Centralization of Access by residents 3. METROPOLITAN-LEVEL / REGIONAL some functions while may be affected; GOVERNMENT preserving local accountability may be identities via first-level weakened or unclear.12 local governments.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 95 Table 3-10: Continued

Approach Characteristics Pros (advantages) Cons (disadvantages) Examples (i) A Metropolitan-level A separate metro level A permanent government Effectiveness tends to Toronto, Canada 1954-98 Local Government local government, with a structure for certain depend on: (a) the degree Cape Town, RSA (to directly elected Council metro functions. of its authority over the 2000) or one appointed by the Specialized metropolitan- other local governments; Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire (to area local governments. level resources. (b) funding; and (c) 2001) Responsible for if mainly planning Dar es Salaam, Tanzania coordination and functions or some service (no authority selective functions delivery functions as over other (3) local (may or may not include well. governments) service delivery). Budapest, Hungary It may or may not have (with limited authority) authority over the other London, UK (substantial local governments. authority over boroughs) (ii) A Regional A government A permanent government Risk of limited The Twin Cities, USA Government Established established by a structure (elected, or engagement by the local (appointed by the state) by Higher Level provincial or national appointed) for certain governments in the area. Portland, USA (elected) Government13 government for a metro metropolitan functions. Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire area. Funding would Specialized resources. Madrid, Spain usually be part of the Funding would normally Stuttgart, Germany higher tier government not be an issue. (directly elected) budget. London, UK (with directly elected Mayor) Ile-de-France (Paris) Manila, The Philippines (strong local representation; chair appointed by President) 4. CONSOLIDATED LOCAL GOVERNMENT (through amalgamation or annexation) Jurisdiction covering a Facilitates coordination, Resident access to the Cape Town, South Africa large portion (or all) of redistribution / local government may Pittsburgh, USA the metropolitan area. equalization (one be affected, and local Toronto, Canada tax base) and scale responsiveness and Istanbul, Turkey economies. accountability weakened. Reduce competition and public choice.

10 11 12 13

10 If local governments are mostly funding the authority, they need to be adequately represented on its board or council to ensure the accountability of decisions. 11 The areas and average populations of French local governments are small by international standards. They therefore make extensive use of cooperative arrangements for their service provision. France has a particular legal framework for inter-municipal cooperation (‘syndicats intercommunaux’). The syndicates are similar to cooperatives or federations of local governments to carry out single or multiple functions. A local government may be involved in several syndicates. 12 Some argue that large-scale metropolitan governments lead to greatly reduced citizen participation, and weakened democratic accountability. (Oakerson, 2004). 13 The Ministry of Nairobi Metropolitan Development, Kenya can be considered a variation of this although with no direct authority over the area local governments.

96 Annexes 3.4.5 Metropolitan (regional) authority: city examples14

Variety of approaches for a metropolitan authority

72. Planning and service consolidation through a metropolitan authority can generate efficiency gains, particularly for smaller local governments in a metro area to remain independent yet efficient, signing service delivery contracts with the metro authority or utility company.15 Characteristics of a metro authority are reflected in Table 3-11, distinguishing options for each dimension. For example, some transport authorities are characterized by items in bold.

Table 3-11: Characteristics of metropolitan authorities

Dimension Option 1 Option 2 Function Planning Planning and Service Delivery Scope Single Sector/Function Multiple Sectors/Functions Degree of Authority Advising/guiding Managing Legal status Public Sector Agency Public Sector Corporation or Utility Company Operational Non-profit For profit Accountability of Council/ Appointed or elected by the local governments in Elected by the residents in the Area Board16 the Area

Tax sharing agreements

73. Tax competition is sometimes tempting for local governments to attract business and high-income residents. However, reduction of tax rates sometimes becomes “a race to the bottom” and loss of revenues.

74. Communauté Urbaine of Marseille, France is a consortium of seventeen cities which uses a joint system for collection of a business tax with common tax rate, avoiding tax competition and achieving more cost-effective tax collection. It is governed by a body of the mayors and councilors of the municipalities, responsible for regional economic development, transport, land use and housing, crime prevention, waste disposal and environmental policies. Marseille transitioned from informal cooperation among a few local governments focused on a few roads and traffic projects, to a regional planning and service delivery authority.

75. The local governments (58) in the Grand Lyon, France area have a tax sharing arrangement whereby part of the local tax revenues are allocated to a common budget for metro level initiatives and expenditures.

76. The Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St.Paul), USA experienced significant mismatch between social needs and tax base (income and property tax) between two central cities and suburban areas. They established a Metro Council with access to part of the property taxes in the region to finance certain services and targeted transport subsidies. This council evolved into a Regional Government appointed by the Minnesota state government, and subsequently to a public sector corporation.

14 Basic data on city examples in the paper can be found on www.wikipedia.com 15 “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” is a saying in this regard. However, if the parts cannot come together politically to add up to the whole, then they may be worse off. (McCarthy, 2011) 16 An additional option is when appointed by a provincial or national government.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 97 Flexible arrangements

77. The metro governance in Bologna, Italy was established on a voluntary basis in 1994 by forty-eight local governments and the province of Bologna. A metropolitan council is composed of all the mayors and presided over by the provincial president. Each local government is free to withdraw at any time and may participate in some or all activities of the council; a low-risk approach for the governments in the area.

78. A metropolitan authority needs to be properly funded. Greater Vancouver Regional Service District (GVRD), Canada finances its services through user charges, a share of property tax, and annual contributions from the member local governments, but has also been given authority to collect a road and gasoline tax in the metropolitan area. This metropolitan administration is now a public corporation with a Board composed of representatives of the eighteen member local governments; another flexible, demand-driven organization providing different services to its members through individual agreements. Since its establishment in 1965 numerous services have been added, including human resource management services on a contract basis. It does not have any strong land use planning powers though. GVRD was initially established by the provincial government, but has evolved to a corporation governed by the member municipalities. (See Box 3-1 to learn more about the GPVD’s history and approach).

3.4.6 Metropolitan-level planning through non-governmental organizations

79. Metropolitan-level planning is sometimes carried out by non-governmental organizations.

80. Regional Plan Association (RPA) serves the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut Metropolitan Region, which is comprised of 31 Counties. RPA is an independent metropolitan policy, research and advocacy group, which performs most of the regional planning functions, partly funded by the area Counties. (See Box 3-2 for more information on the RPA’s role in planning for the New York metro area.)

81. Although a new constitution in Brazil (1989) increased the autonomy of local governments and delegated responsibility for designing metropolitan structures to the state legislatures, relatively few examples of formal inter-municipal cooperation exist except in the São Paulo ABC Region17. This metro organization has had particularly active engagement of the civil society and the local private sector, and has played important roles in the economic development of the area (the City of São Paolo does not participate however). It was created to reinvent the region with a new economic vision after a period of very high unemployment.

17 The name refers to three small cities bordering São Paulo, initially forming this cooperation.

98 Annexes Municipal development agencies

82. A separate agency for planning and development has been established for some cities; some with a mandate focused on land use and master planning (Delhi Development Authority in India, and Dhaka Capital Development Authority (RAJUK) in Bangladesh)18 (Siddiqui, 2004), others with broader city development mandates such as Lagos Mega-City Development Authority in Nigeria, and London Development Agency in the UK, recently incorporated into the Greater London Authority to which the Mayor of London reports. These regional authorities combine some governing authority with development and service functions. They often receive state or municipal land to develop and sell.

3.4.7 Metropolitan-level / regional government: city examples19

Metropolitan-level local governments: institutional evolutions

Box 3-1 Greater Vancouver Regional District: An evolutionary approach to regional, district-based metropolitan planning & management

The Greater Vancouver Regional Districts (GVRD) was established in 1965; it now encompasses 21 municipalities that make up the metropolitan area of Greater Vancouver, an area that is home to 2.1 million people (2005), forecast to reach 2.7 million by 2021. The GVRD was originally constituted to deliver services most efficiently accomplished at a regional level, namely sewerage, drinking water, health/hospitals, and industrial development services. It has added functions over the years, including recycling, affordable housing, regional parks, air quality control, labor relations, and emergency communications (911). GVRD’s mandate is to cost-effectively deliver utilitiy services at the regional scale, to plan and manage regional growth and development, and to protect and enhance the quality of life in the Region. The GVRD’s Board of Directors is the primary decision-making body and collective voice in regard to regional development issues. The Board of Directors is comprised of mayors and councilors from the member municipalities. Board meetings are held once a month and are usually open to the public.

The GVRD stresses the involvement and participation of interested members of the general public. Under the umbrella of the GVRD, there are four separate legal entities: the GVRD/University of British Columbia (UBC) Joint Committee, the Greater Van- couver Water District (GVWD), the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD), and the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation (GVHC). In addition, the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (Trans Link) was formed in 1998 as a body associated with the GVRD to coordinate and implement transportation plans and services for the movement of people and goods in the Region. Trans Link also operates the Air Care program, which aims to improve air quality by reducing harmful emissions from automobiles. From 1992 to 2002, the program is credited with reducing air emissions in the urban area by thir- ty-five percent. Vancouver has received numerous international awards, and ranks amongst the most livable cities in the world, according to premier media, such as, The Economist. Maintaining this quality of life is a significant challenge particularly in the face of population pressures, changing demographics, and economic re-structuring, plus demands for housing and employment associated with rapid growth.

In 1990, the GVRD Board produced Creating our Future: Steps to a More Livable Region to respond to challenges facing the region. It engaged more than 4,000 residents in a public consultation process. The over 200 issues identified in the process resulted in agreement to take 54 actions, incorporated in the Livable Region Strategic Plan introduced in 1996. Importantly, like most metropolitan agencies worldwide, the regional strategy advocates development of Regional Towns to minimize urban sprawl, commuting, and air pollution.

18 Both established by the national governments. 19 Municipal governments which essentially cover their metro areas can also be viewed as “metropolitan local governments” (e.g. in China and South Africa).

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 99 Box 3-1 Continued

Other agencies, the private sector, and residents use the plan to understand and contribute to Greater Vancouver’s vision for its future development. It helps all stakeholders “to face in the same direction”.

To improve metropolitan governance, the GVRD set up the Sustainable Region Initiative Forum. Regular discussion and meetings such as sustainability community breakfasts and regional dialogues are organized. In addition, the Greater Vancouver Economic Council (GVEC) has been established as the catalyst to deepen high promise industrial clusters and thereby enhance the regional economy. An important mandate of the GVEC is to take the lead in attracting investment to the Region through marketing and branding. GVEC’s mission is to support development, positioning the Region as the West’s Gateway to Asia and Canada’s “Cre- ative City”.

Much can be learned from the GVRD case. Of note is its evolutionary character. Although originally created to deliver “routine” functions such as sewerage, it has steadily added functions over the years as confidence in its role has increased. It does this in two ways: (i) internally, e.g., through agencies such as the GVHC, which operates within the GVRD’s institutional framework, and (ii) by spinning off entities such as the GVEC. Although it increasingly appears to be a regional government, it denies this role, being careful to allow constituent municipalities to maintain their autonomy. Important in this regard is the fact that municipali- ties can choose to opt out of any function or service provided by the GVRD. Much of GVRD’s success can be explained by its ability to mediate tensions between the British Columbia Provincial Government (Provincial governments are very powerful in Canada) and constituent municipal governments.

Sources: GVRD 2006; Western Ecoomic Diversification Canada 2006; Webster et al 2006

83. International experience suggests that flexibility of governance arrangements over time is advisable as the local and regional circumstances change. The following examples have all had a local metropolitan government at some time, but have evolved between different models. (Slack, 2007)

84. Toronto, Canada operated under 13 independent municipalities until 1953, when a two-level system with an elected Metro Toronto and six additional independent local governments were established (each level with separate functions). In 1995 these seven entities were merged into one local government for the City of Toronto (still only representing about 50 percent of the population in the metropolitan area). The changes were made to increase effectiveness in service delivery and harmonize service levels across the area, and the provincial government played an important role in the institution's evolution.

85. London, UK was governed by a two-level structure from 1964 to 1986, the Greater London Council (GLC) and 32 local governments (each with its own mayor and council). In 1986, the GLC was abolished and governance of London became the responsibility of central government ministers, using ad hoc arrangements for regional planning. Since 2000, London again has a city-wide government with elected members of a Greater London Authority (GLA) and since 2002 also a directly elected mayor. GLA is a higher-level strategic authority to promote sustainable development and define strategy, particularly for transport, police, economic development planning, fire and emergency planning, land use planning, culture, environment, health, and coordination of London-wide events. GLA and local governments have little fiscal autonomy; more than 80 percent of their revenues come from central government grants.

86. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Reforms in 1978 restored “commune” status to the major cities in Côte d’Ivoire. Abidjan, the former capital and the largest city in the country, had ten local governments, each with elected mayor and council. At the same time, a metropolitan government, the City of Abidjan, was established for

100 Annexes Box 3-2 New York Metropolitan Region: A legitimized civil society approach to megapolitan planning: the pioneering role of the regional planning association

The New York metropolitan region (NYMR) is the most populated urbanized area in the U.S. (2005 U.S. Census Bureau CSA pop. 21.9 million), and based on the UN urban agglomeration classification, the third largest in the world (after Tokyo and Mexico City). It covers 31 counties of the tri-state New York- New Jersey-Connecticut region encompassing 33,670 sq km. New York City, the core of the metropolitan region has a population of over 8.1 million with an area of 830 sq km, only 2.5% of the land area of the metropolis. A global city, New York is known for international finance, fashion, entertainment and culture. New York City itself has been a metropolitan municipality with a strong mayor-council government since its creation, the product of a consolidation of a number of autonomous local governments in 1898. The mayor is elected to a four-year term while 51 councilors are elected to two-year terms, strengthening the power of the mayor.

There is no “official” regional planning organization for the NYMR, but the Regional Plan Association (RPA), as an independent, not-for-profit regional planning organization is highly influential in planning both the region and its component jurisdictions. It is the de facto Regional Planning agency for the NYMR, having more power and a more impressive track record than virtually any metropolitan planning organization in the United States. This civil society based approach to planning in the NYMR is not regarded as a stepping stone to legal formalization, but a more advanced approach to regional planning based on collaborative planning, currently in vogue in both governmental and academic circles. Collaborative planning involves bringing representatives of key interests to the table, governments being only one of the parties involved, although they are expected to legalize most outcomes of the process (some initiatives can be implemented purely through non-governmental means). The RPA’s de facto legitimacy and stellar reputation is the product of two factors, its long history, and the high quality of its work. It was established in 1922.

RPA has played a key role in shaping the Region’s transportation systems, protecting open spaces, and promoting high quality urban development. The First Regional Plan completed in 1929 set the form for the Region’s growth over the next several decades, correctly identifying transportation and open space networks as the key levers to shape the Region. The Second Regional Plan in 1968 successfully targeted: (i) restoration of the Region’s deteriorated mass transit system, and (ii) revitalization and strength- ening of urban centers to make mass transportation more viable, preserve natural resources, and create areas of high urban intensity within the vast Region. The Third Plan, in 1996, A Region at Risk, addressed the Region’s extreme fiscal problems. In the post 9/11 period, RPA has been involved in the redevelopment of lower Manhattan, seriously damaged by the terrorist attacks, as well as strengthening disadvantaged communities such as East Harlem, through community based activities.

As well as being a world-class regional research and planning organization, RPA has considerable strengths as an advocacy organization, an educational and awareness agency (working with local governments, communities, and the public), the lat- ter strengthened by partnerships such as with the Institute on Community Design at Princeton University. One of the greatest strengths of the RPA is its links with leading US professional groups such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Amer- ican Institute of Planners (AIP), and the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). Strong professional connections enable the RPA to access some of the best talent in city building, at affordable rates, or even on a voluntary basis.

RPA always takes an interdisciplinary perspective that integrates economic development (competitiveness), human resources and the human condition, land use, transportation, and environmental and design expertise. To implement, RPA’s main strategy is to build an alliance of various stakeholders, including local governments, interest groups (e.g., environmental), professional groups, and the business community. Given the enormous power of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, RPA has long worked closely with them, using the Authority as a lever to shape the Region.

Sources: Alfsen-Norodom 2004; Civic Alliance 2006; Regional Planning Association 2006; Webster et al 2006

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 101 many local functions, with a council of the City mayor and four councilors from each local government. The mayor of the City was indirectly elected by the ten mayors. This system functioned for over 20 years, but the local governments were constrained by the national government in carrying out some functions, and the City had little influence over its finances. National government collected property taxes and remitted them to the local governments which then paid (often delayed) a portion to the City. (Stren, 2007) In 2001, the City of Abidjan was replaced by a Regional Government, or “District” of Abidjan. The post of City Mayor was replaced by a District Governor appointed by the President of the country. The original ten local governments were maintained and three suburban jurisdictions and some rural areas were added.

87. Johannesburg, South Africa, the largest city in South Africa by population, evolved from a segregated city with eleven councils, through a stage with one Metro Council plus four subordinated Local Councils, to the current one single-level city government covering the main part of the metropolitan area. It has been innovative in shaping its internal governance by issuing management contracts for water and sanitation services; corporatizing road and solid waste functions; and moving to private management of its real estate.

Regional Government Established by a Provincial or National Government

88. Metropolitan governance reforms have rarely emerged purely from local government initiatives; rather, a national or provincial government has usually either imposed or encouraged it (OECD 2006).

89. Portland, Oregon, USA. Initially Portland had a COG/planning authority for primarily land use management. It took on additional functions, and eventually was elevated to a directly elected regional government established by the Oregon State Government. It may now levy property, sales, and income taxes, and issue Metro bonds for investments.

90. Verband Region Stuttgart, Germany was created by the Baden-Wurtenberg state government in 1993 as a directly elected higher-level metropolitan entity for an area with 179 local governments. Its main responsibility at present is serving as a public transport authority. For its broader purposes it has become fairly weak, in large part because it has no authority to levy taxes or user charges. Its funding is derived about equally from local government contributions and the state government. (OECD 2006)

91. Metro Nairobi, Kenya (a different approach). A Ministry of Nairobi Metropolitan Development was established in 2008 by presidential decree to facilitate implementation of a development strategy for this, extremely large (32,000 km2) area of fifteen local governments. However, participation of the main city, City of Nairobi, has been limited.

3.4.8 Consolidated local government: city examples

92. Annexation or amalgamation of jurisdictions may sometimes be the most effective approach to achieve needed scale and equity in public service provision. Yet, this tends to be the most politically controversial, usually requiring active involvement of a national or provincial government. Few amalgamations have achieved coverage of an entire metropolitan area. However, in those cases where local governments do indeed cover their economic region, coordination is less challenging in terms of institutional complexity. However, allocation of resources and services to the residents across the area still often presents challenges.

102 Annexes 93. Cape Town, South Africa boundaries were drawn by the Municipal Demarcation Board20 in 1998, and now include almost all people who live and work in the metro area (2,461 km2).

94. Istanbul, Turkey had its administrative boundaries expanded in 2004 to include provinces previously governed by the central government, increasing its area from 1,830 to 5,340 km2. (Turan 2011)

95. Shanghai Municipal Government, China (and similarly all larger municipalities in China) covers its entire metropolitan area (6,340 km2).

96. Chinese cities have a two-level local government structure; a municipal government with a number of subordinated district and county governments. Districts are the more urban ones, and counties the more rural ones. Coordination is often still challenging due to counties being quite independently governed; an example where political economy and legacy may influence how an area is functioning in practice. In this case, the municipal government tend to limit its involvement with how the county governments run their affairs in order not to interfere with how they meet their performance targets.

97. Additional examples where the local governments (with subordinated districts or wards) essentially cover their respective economic regions are Seoul, Tokyo, and Istanbul. (OECD, 2006). See Box 33 for information about the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

3.4.9 Large infrastructure projects: special situations

98. Managing and funding infrastructure projects that benefit various local jurisdictions needs special arrangements, sometimes a separate project entity to implement the project and possibly to also own, operate and maintain the assets. A higher tier government often has a key role to play, as exemplified below.

99. ARPEGIO is a public sector company in Madrid, Spain through which a directly elected regional government undertakes projects in coordination with local governments. ARPEGIO obtains public land from local governments for development, marketing and management. It allows agile planning and execution of projects that are not attractive for the private sector.

100. A Metrorail Project is under construction in the Greater Washington Area in United States, extending rapid transit service to an international airport and employment centers in the area. The project funding is from: (i) voluntary taxes on local businesses/landowners; (ii) toll road revenues; (iii) two local governments; (iv) one state government; and (v) grant funds from the US Federal Government (from gas tax revenues and economic stimulus funds).

20 Similar consolidations were done across the country creating six large metropolitan municipalities.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 103 3.4.10 Lessons learned and policy implications

101. Lessons from international experience in metropolitan management for Malaysian policy makers include the following:

»» When the population of one local government is dominant in a metro area, this tends to be an additional challenge for achieving joint actions (e.g. Nairobi, Sao Paolo, Paris). Care should be taken so that each of the jurisdictions is able to voice its needs.

»» Few cities cover their entire metropolitan area. While having one local government covering most of its metro area may facilitate coordination, government accountability and accessibility by residents may suffer; and area-wide coordination may still be a challenge (South Africa, China).

»» Evolution from one model to another is not uncommon as local and regional circumstances change and learning takes place (London, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland, Toronto).

»» Active involvement of a higher level government is often required to ensure arrangements for reasonable coordination of public services and area-wide development (Abidjan, Manila, Stuttgart, Toronto). However, metropolitan arrangements created in a “top-down” manner by a provincial or national government will often be weak unless they are actively supported by the area local governments (Dar es Salaam, Stuttgart).

»» Cost savings is often an argument for amalgamation or annexation. However, as the case of Toronto has shown, by unifying salaries and services across the earlier local government areas, the overall costs may go up.

102. The implications for policy and practice in a particular metropolitan area include:

»» Determine where are the largest gains from joint or coordinated actions (“differences which would make a difference”).

»» Engage stakeholders thoroughly.

»» Find a balance between achieving efficiency and social equity, and ensuring voice and accountability.

103. Given the large number of agencies at various levels that already exist in the Malaysian context, creating new government bodies (e.g. London, Nairobi) may simply add to the complexity, making coordination even more difficult. Consolidation of local governments (e.g. Cape Town, Istanbul, Chinese cities) may work in the case of smaller conurbations. Systems by which local governments can coordinate on individual services (e.g. transportation planning in US metro areas) or metropolitan-scale investments (Madrid, Washington), or flexible, voluntary arrangements as in Bologna, Italy, could benefit Malaysian metro areas without the disruption of creating new agencies or consolidating jurisdictions. These could be encouraged by the national or state governments by linking metropolitan coordination with funding opportunities. Such arrangements could gradually formalize and take on more re sponsibilities over time, as in Greater Vancouver. Lastly, support for long-term strategic planning at the metropolitan scale, separate from day-to-day urban service delivery, provided by a non-governmental organization (e.g. RPA in New York) could help guide local governments act in a more coordinated manner.

104 Annexes Box 3-3 Seoul Metropolitan Government: Leadership from the metropolitan core

The Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) constitutes the core of the Seoul Metropolitan Region (SMR), the latter a megapolitan area containing 48% of South Korea’s population (23 million). The SMR typifies extended urban regions in East Asia, it is nineteen times as large in area as the SMA, with an area of 11,773 square kilometers. Over time, an increasing proportion of the SMR’s population lives outside the SMA; in part because SMA’s area has been extended only slightly between 1963 and 2004 (from 595 to 605 sq. kms.), combined with the fact that the population of the SMA peaked in 1992 at 11 million, declining to 10.3 million by 2004 through suburbanization and peri-urbanization processes.

Within the SMA, the city’s efficiency has been increased substantially through the establishment of public corporations, e.g., the Seoul Metro Corporation and the Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, which are responsible for 9 subway lines, the Seoul Housing Corporation responsible for low income housing, and the Seoul Metropolitan Facilities Management Corporation, responsible for car-only roads and parking facilities. The SMG is now focused on quality of life, given that efficiency objectives have largely been achieved. This shift is described as a shift from a growth oriented (quantitative) model to a growth management (quality) model. The latter includes restoration of historic, cultural, and natural environments. Related to the latter, Seoul has attracted global attention by restoring Cheonggyechon Stream which runs through the heart of the city. This has involved removal of an expressway (that covered it) – a cost deemed acceptable, given the shifting values of increasingly wealthy SMA residents.

Megapolitan governance is based on three tiers: the SMR, SMG and the Districts. Typical of extended urban regions such as Bang- kok and Toronto, the SMR has limited powers, especially in terms of service delivery. The national government takes the lead in economic, demographic, and spatial planning for the SMR, through the Capital Region Management Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister. At present, the second Capital Region Management Plan 1997-2011, based on the Capital Region Management Act of 1982, establishes basic parameters for the region, e.g., land use and urban form (promoting a multi-nuclei structure), industrial distribution, and national government capital investments. The twenty-five Autonomous Districts undertake their own locally derived projects under a certain scale (e.g., roads less than 20 meters wide, sewage pipes under 900 mm), plus those commissioned by the SMG. The mayor of each District is also elected.

Cooperation between the SMG and surrounding jurisdictions has resulted in positive outcomes, e.g., the establishment of the Capital Region Transport Association, which co-ordinates 397 bus routes carrying 8.8 million riders daily in Seoul, Gyonggi and Inchon. Of particular note is the initiative to improve water quality in the Han River, which flows through Seoul. The Committee for the Management of the Han River Water Quality allocates zero costs to the two furthest upstream jurisdictions (Gangwon, Chungchung), whereas downstream communities share the vast majority of costs, aided by a matching grant from the Korea Water Resources Corporation. In effect, the downstream communities provide upstream jurisdictions with a subsidy for perform- ing environmental services.

From 1998 to 2001, SMG implemented a series of reforms such as the citizen evaluation system, online procedures to handle civil service applications (the open system), and performance based budgeting. The reforms were implemented immediately after the East Asian financial crisis of 1997, when people were receptive to change. The citizen evaluation system (requiring quick internet response from the responsible official) and anti-corruption index were recognized as “the most valuable reform” by the Presiden- tial Commission on Governmental Innovation in Korea.

Metropolitan Seoul indicates that even when the metropolitan area cannot be expanded to keep up with peripheral population expansion and movement of population to suburban and peri-urban areas, coordination of development can be successful. In the Seoul case this coordination was catalyzed by the national government.

Sources: Kim 2004; Metropolis 2006; Soeul Metropolitan Government 2006; Webster et al 2006

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 105 Table 3-12: Allocation of expenditure responsibilities for metropolitan-wide vs. local service provision

Metro Local Central Function wide Govt Govt Rationale Strategic develop. planning X Externalities 1 Economic development X Externalities Tourism promotion & mgmt. X Externalities Regional land use planning X Externalities 2 Local land plans / allocation X Local access, responsiveness (some externalities) Titling / provision of tenure X No externalities (possibly scale economies) Social (low income) housing X Redistribution; scale; some externalities Community upgrading X Local responsiveness; limited externalities 3 Cultural facilities X X Economies of scale vs. local responsiveness Libraries X Local responsiveness Parks and recreation facilities X Local responsiveness Roads and bridges X X X Main (arterial) roads vs. local (street) roads 4 Public transit X Externalities; economies of scale Street lighting and cleaning X No (or limited) externalities Police protection/security X X Externalities; economies of scale Traffic management X Local responsiveness 5 Basic fire / rescue services X Local responsiveness Specialized services; training X Scale economies Ambulance service X Economies of scale; externalities Water supply system X Economies of scale Drainage/flood protection X Economies of scale; externalities 6 Piped sewerage system X Economies of scale Solid waste disposal X Economies of scale (e.g. landfill); externalities Solid waste collection X Less economies of scale and externalities Education X X Primary and secondary vs. higher education 7 Public health X X Externalities; redistribution; scale economies Welfare assistance X X Income redistribution; externalities Promotion of major events X Externalities 8 Business licensing X Local responsiveness 9 Power generation (electricity) X

Source: Based on Slack (2004)

106 Annexes 3.5 Mayor’s Wedge Analysis for Greater KL/KV PBTs

Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ)

Summary

104. Local authorities (PBTs)21, the unit of institutional analysis for city governments in Malaysia, appear to have a very limited direct role in impacting the competitiveness of their city. Cities worldwide have different degrees of influence in such economic development activities, which relate to both intergovernmental structures and the involvement of stakeholders at the city level. Throughout Malaysia, economic development initiatives are carried out by national agencies, state-level agencies and regional corridor authorities. In addition, in several city-level functions—such as infrastructure and land use and planning—operations and decision-making are spread across levels of government, with limited local government influence. Both Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) function as local authorities throughout the country, with DBKL under the Ministry of Federal Territories, and MPAJ under the Selangor state government.

105. The national government has led the targeting of proactive economic interventions in the Greater KL/KV metro area, identifying is as one of its National Key Economic Areas (NKEA) and as part of its Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). This has seen various government agencies tasked to carry out the entry point projects (EPPs) to fulfill the 2020 vision for Kuala Lumpur. DBKL and MPAJ’s roles in these initiatives are limited to areas outside of economic development. Investment attraction and talent formation and attraction are carried out by national agencies, while the city governments have a role for revitalizing the area along the Klang River, greening the city and developing a pedestrian network.

106. Cities worldwide provide different approaches and institutional typologies for tackling the most pressing policy issues of their city or metropolitan area. Seoul and Los Angeles led reforms to reduce automobile congestion and increase public transport use, and in Seoul’s case, revitalize urban areas. Manchester’s success has earned it more responsibilities from an otherwise very centralized U.K. central government. The Manchester Combined Authority also offers a successful example of government collaboration within a metropolitan area.

107. This institutional analysis of DBKL and MPAJ identifies the limited role of city government in economic development and service delivery overall, and it also presents the myriad of institutions at the national and state level that coordinate service delivery in cities. The complexity that arises from this arrangement is being addressed by the Malaysian government, which has done this by creating national agencies around certain government functions and to oversee performance.22 However, it may be the case that greater centralization only increases the current institutional complexity. Cities coordinate and carry out services for both national and state government bodies, and designated national level agencies such as SPAD, InvestKL, and Talent Corp.

3.5.1 The Mayor’s wedge framework: a standardized framework for city governments

108. As a starting point on implementation, the “mayor’s wedge” is defined as the “range of interventions that city leaders can influence, compared to those that are predetermined by higher levels of government” (Competitive Cities Knowledge Base Concept Note). The mayor’s wedge framework is being developed as standardized approach to measuring the role of city governments worldwide, with a particular emphasis on a city’s role in economic development. The city government role is framed through the city’s scope—government powers,

21 Local governments, pihak berkuasa tempatan (PBT) in Malay, are commonly referred to as PBTs. 22 PEMANDU, the national delivery unit, is the most obvious example, but the creation of the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) for all levels of government also attests to this.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 107 functions and funding—and capacity—the financial (systems and processes) and technical (staff expertise) ability to perform its functions.

109. The framework includes city scope components of institutional and economic development context, functional assignments, budget and staffing discretion and expenditures, revenue discretion and politics. A city’s capacity is further disaggregated in terms of human resource management; public financial management; controlling corruption; and building “growth coalitions”. While these are the standardized components, certain scope components such as the political system, and capacity components have not been applied here to the context of the Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley area governments. Figure 3-2 below is a visualization of the mayor’s wedge framework.

Figure 3 2: The Mayor’s Wedge Framework (scope and capacity)

110. For the Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley (Greater KL/KV) metropolitan area, the objective is to identify the role of public sector institutions in creating an enabling environment for economic development, and distinguish which of those institutions are at the city or local level as compared to other levels of government. While the mayor’s wedge identifies the role of the city government in particular, it expands to include those public sector actors that carry out economic development if these functions are beyond the city’s administrative remit. Additionally, it is often city actors from the private sector or other stakeholder groups either working with, or in place of, the city government in leading proactive economic development initiatives. The following is the mayor’s wedge analysis of the Greater KL/KV metropolitan area local governments of Kuala Lumpur City Hall (Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur - DBKL) and Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya - MPAJ).

3.5.2 Overview: Greater Kuala Lumpur and Klang Valley PBTs

111. Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley is composed of 10 local governments, including three city councils and seven municipal councils—these are listed in the graphic below (along with their population) (Ministry of

108 Annexes Federal Territories).23 Greater KL/KV is within Selangor State; however the Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya are autonomous federal territories, administered by the Ministry of Federal Territories. Federal territories are administered as local governments, and have almost all of the attributes of PBTs, but differ in that they report directly to the national government24, namely to the Ministry of Federal Territories.

Figure 3-3: Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley PBTs25

112. While Greater KL/KV has no overarching governance structure for the entire metropolitan area, the territory’s inclusion as a National Key Economic Area (NKEA) outlines several metro area-wide priorities in investment attraction, mass public transportation, and urban regeneration and livability.26 The National Key Economic Areas are part of the national government’s “national transformation program” (NTP)—composed of a “government transformation program” (GTP) and “economic transformation program” (ETP). The Greater KL/ KV NKEA initiatives, as noted in the ETP Annual Report (2013), are led by the Ministry of Federal Territories and involve several government agencies and private sector firms. The report states that the NKEA “involves the efforts of more than 40 Government agencies and private sector firms to transform the Greater KL/Klang Valley region into a vibrant, world-class hub for residents and visitors alike to live, work and play (ETP Annual Report 2013: 42).”27

23 The metropolitan area has a total population of about 5.7 million (2010). 24 Federal territories are autonomous of their state. 25 Source: Official website of Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley, Ministry of Federal Territories 26 This references the entry point projects (EPPs) for Greater KL/KV according to the NKEA. 27 The ETP’s target is for Malaysia to become a high-income country by 2020, through achieving specific goals set out in each of its NKEAs.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 109 3.5.3 Malaysia’s intergovernmental environment

113. A review of Malaysia’s broad governance environment illustrates that while the country has a federal structure, it is highly centralized. The federal and state governments in Malaysia retain the majority of government resources and decision-making powers. Furthermore, local government bodies must seek the approval of their respective states28 to carry out several of the functions that they are assigned.

Mayor’s wedge typologies – Malaysia, South Africa and Indonesia

114. Malaysian cities may have either of two types of government administration: city halls/councils for large urban centers and municipal councils for large towns. Cities fall in either of the two tiers depending on a combination of population, revenue and economic output criteria (CLGF 2013: 90-91). Other countries, such as South Africa and the Indonesia, also have several local government types—South Africa has metropolitan, district and local municipalities, and Indonesia has cities and districts (Smoke 2013: 61). South Africa follows a model of devolution, with city governments wielding more influence over policy levers and being answerable to their constituents as opposed to higher tiers of government (Smoke 2013: 60). Indonesia has moved from deconcentration to provinces to devolution to cities (Smoke 2013: 62). The chart below compares aspects of the mayor’s wedge for South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia, discussing decentralization context, policy levers and revenue raising power. Essentially, the countries fall into three typologies, with South Africa having an enlarged mayor’s wedge, Malaysia a constrained mayor’s wedge, and Indonesia falling somewhere in the middle.

Table 3-13: Comparing the mayor’s wedge of South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia29 South Africa Indonesia Malaysia Devolution to cities since Deconcentration where city Metro municipalities are more 2001, yet recent reforms have governments implement Decentralization Context independent than provinces, increased role of higher-level functions and directives from metro powers have increased government higher-level government Cities provide local business development support, and Metros have responsibilities in Cities have no direct role some set up one stop shops economic promotion, tourism in economic development- to foster a good investment (economic), transport and related functions (all state or Policy Levers climate (economic). Most urban roads (transport), and federal government led), nor in other urban tasks are at the policing and civil protection policing and/or civil protection local level, apart from land (general administration) (general administration) management and higher education Cities collect several Metros much more fiscally Very little revenue is raised municipal taxes but cannot set independent than other local by cities (local governments). tax rates or create new taxes. governments, and have a Cities have access to local Revenue Raising Devolution has increased city several revenue sources (as property tax and user fees and spending autonomy, financed opposed to just property tax charges only (as own-source via fiscal transfers. Local taxes revenue) revenues) have slightly increased

28 Federal territories report instead to the Ministry of Federal Territories. 29 Findings for countries from Smoke 2013, CLGF South Africa Country Profile, UCLG Indonesia Country Profile, CLGF Malaysia Country Profile and UCLG Malaysia Country Profile.

110 Annexes City government spending, budgeting and staffing discretion 115. Proxies for decentralization to city governments include both the degree to which cities are involved in resource mobilization (this includes local taxation), on the revenue side, and the breadth and depth of their service delivery responsibilities, on the expenditure side (Frank 2014). At the aggregate level, local government spending in Malaysia is rather low as a percentage of total government spending—it stands at less than 5 percent (UCLG 2011: 87). The aggregate local government spending in South Africa stands at 17.4 percent, although metropolitan cities account for 57 percent of municipal spending (UCLG 2011: 336) (Smoke 2013: 66). Indonesia local government spending is 28 percent as a share of total government spending, and 80 percent of this spending comes from cities and districts (UCLG 2011: 87) (Smoke 2013: 66).

116. While Kuala Lumpur City Hall is able to prepare its own budget, it is not able to determine the overall allocations for either its development (capital) expenditures or its operational expenditures. The Economic Planning Unit sets DBKL’s development expenditures, while the Ministry of Finance determines its operational expenditures. DBKL’s budget is approved by the Ministry of Federal Territories. Likewise, MPAJ’s budget is approved by the Selangor State Government. Both DBKL and MPAJ are able to increase their budget spending by borrowing from the state and/or national government, pending higher-level government approval.30 In addition to DBKL and MPAJ having little influence over development expenditures, development expenditures are not adequately aligned with operational expenditures. Thus, PBTs often do not have the necessary increases in operational expenditure financing in order to account for development expenditures.

117. Malaysian cities have a two-tier civil service, with seconded staff from the federal civil service and local civil service staff. Federal civil service staff is paid for and controlled by the federal government, and the local staff is paid from the city budget—this applies to all Malaysian local authorities, thus to both DBKL and MPAJ. However, even for staff paid for from the city budget, staff numbers must be approved by the Public Service Commission (PSC), and also the relevant higher tier of government. For DBKL, appointments to the civil service and the creation of new positions must be approved by the PSC and then by the Ministry of Federal Territories. This is similar in the case of the MPAJ, except that, appointments and the creation of new positions must be approved by the PSC and then the Selangor State Government. The National Institute of Public Administration, an extension of the Public Service Commission, is responsible for the training of all local government staff in Malaysia. South African municipalities develop their own budgets, which are approved at the municipal council level. Budgets and hiring are subject to relevant laws and regulations (Smoke 2013: 76). In Indonesia, cities initially had more autonomy in both budgets and the civil service; however, recent legislation has increased higher-level government control over budgeting and decisions on the civil service (Smoke 2013: 76).

Revenue discretion 118. Malaysian city governments have a limited role in resource mobilization, and similar to expenditure assignments, there is a dependency relationship of cities to higher tier governments. As shown in Table 312, Malaysia is relatively more constrained in its revenue discretion than both South Africa and Indonesia. Tax collection in the Kuala Lumpur jurisdiction is collected by DBKL and the Ministry of Federal territories— DBKL collects the property assessment tax, while the Ministry collects the quit rent property tax. No other taxes, besides the assessment property tax, are raised or administered by the city government, or any city government in Malaysia. MPAJ collects the property assessment in Ampang Jaya while the Selangor State Government collects rent. While city governments formally have the ability to request to set a new tax rate, in practice these requests are always rejected. Tax rates have not been reassessed in the country for decades. The inefficiencies of the property tax system ultimately constrain the own-source revenues of DBKL and MPAJ, which depend heavily on the collection of property taxes.

30 DBKL must seek approval from the Ministry of Federal Territories, while MPAJ must receive Selangor State Government approval.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 111 119. Local government revenue, as a percentage of total government revenue, is very low in the country, at less than 1 percent (UCLG 2011: 87). This would suggest that most expenditure for cities do not go through the city government budget, but are financed by higher tiers of government. DBKL’s rather low revenue is made up of 90 percent own source revenues (of which 70 percent come from property taxes, and 20 percent from user fees), and 10 percent intergovernmental transfers.

3.5.4 Economic development strategy

120. The National Key Economic Area for Greater KL/KV is the only one with a geographic as opposed to an industry focus31, and this is due to the particular role that cities play in shaping and driving economic development (Economic Transformation Programme 2010: 125). The NKEA functions like the economic development strategy for the city, identifying economic dynamism and livability goals to be achieved by 2020. As aforementioned, these goals are implemented through the entry point projects (EPPs), of which there are nine for the Greater KL/KV NKEA.

121. Several national government agencies are responsible for economic policymaking32 on Greater KL/KV, and this includes the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), the Performance Management Delivery Unit (PEMANDU), the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), the Ministry of Finance (MOF), the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA) and InvestKL (which is under the purview of MITI, PEMANDU and the Ministry of Federal Territories). In terms of the implementation of the Greater KL/KV NKEA, responsibility is shared by InvestKL and TalentCorp on attracting investment and talent, while DBKL and other area local governments have roles in urban regeneration and beautification (ETP Annual Report 2013).

Implementing economic development

122. Malaysia focuses on economic development through focusing on general business environment improvements, targeting specific sectors and prioritizing inventions. The Greater KL/KV NKEA targets the following priority economic sectors: financial services, business services, education, tourism and retail.33 InvestKL was established in 2011 with the mandate to attract 100 multinational corporations (MNCs)—in the priority sectors—to set up regional headquarters in Greater KL/KV by 2020. InvestKL works closely with Talentcorp, the main implementing body of the EPP on attracting external and internal talent, so that it can offer talent with specialized skills for targeted new services industries and for commodities-based industries. Talentcorp works to build a local ecosystem in order to create a large number of jobs, develop a talent attraction program, attracting skilled and qualified Malaysians living abroad, and retain foreign talent currently residing in Malaysia (ETP Annual Report 2013: 28-29).

123. A recent report by Brookings analyzed unemployment of youth and teen adults in the U.S.’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, recognized worsening job prospects from 2000 to 2011 (2014). This of course is an issue among cities worldwide, and one Kuala Lumpur is facing as it looks to build talent to support its labor market demand. Box 3-4 presents the main recommendations from the Brookings report.

31 Malaysia’s NKEAs include: Greater KL/KV, Oil, Gas and Energy, Financial Services, Wholesale and Retail, Palm Oil and Rubber, Tourism, Electrical and Electronics, Business Services, Communications Content and Infrastructure, Education, Agriculture, Healthcare (ETP Annual Report 2013). 32 This includes economic strategies and planning, investment promotions, investment incentives, and monitoring of economic strategies. 33 Combined, they contributed to 41% of Greater KL/KV’s GNI in 2009

112 Annexes 124. DBKL and the other local governments of Greater KL/KV appear to have a limited, or perhaps indirect, role in economic development. According to the NKEA, DBKL’s Physical Planning Department drives the planning and implementation of beautification works on the Klang-Gombak River (EPP 5). Additionally, DBKL’s Economic Planning and Development Coordination Department will make recommendations on the development of the land along the river corridor. Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) is tasked with and has reduced oil and grease levels along the portion of the river that falls under its jurisdiction. DBKL leads EPP 6 on a greener Kuala Lumpur, planting and maintaining trees and attempting to increase participation of public and private sector companies in the overall greening effort. DBKL also leads the efforts on identify iconic city attractions (EPP 7) as well as improving pedestrian connectivity (EPP 8) (ETP Annual Report 2013: 33-39).

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 113 Box 3-4 Selected recommendations for teen and young adult unemployment in U.S. cities

Enrich high school and college education with work-based learning opportunities and expand apprenticeships ›› Work-based learning provides a practical and applied setting for students to learn employability skills (e.g. problem-solving, communication), highlight the relevance of education, and provide students networks to employers and employment that they would otherwise not be able to access. ›› Examples: • The Christo Rey Network of high schools places students in “work-study” programs during their academic year. • U.S. States Wisconsin and Georgia have created youth apprenticeship programs for their high school students, linking together high schools, businesses and community colleges.

Link high schools to post-secondary education ›› About two-thirds of 24 to 29 year olds do not have either two or four year post-secondary education credentials. Dual enroll- ment and early college programs allow students to take college classes in high school, and increase the likelihood that they will continue on to college. ›› Examples: • Launched in 2002, the Early College High School Initiative has created and modified 240 high schools nationwide to blend high school and college into one rigorous program. • North Carolina’s Career and College Promise program creates several alternatives for high school students to earn college credit, also including paths to transfer to four-year degree programs.

Increase the emphasis on career and technical education, career counseling and job placement ›› This refers to better preparing and planning for high school students to directly start in the entry-level workforce, such as through attaining the necessary workplace skills in high school. ›› Examples: • Jobs for America’s Graduates (JAG) provides students at risk of dropping out with help to graduate from high school, enroll in post secondary education, and/or find a job. • Year Up, a program in 12 cities across the United States, provides training on information technology skills and college credits to young adults ages 18-24.

Provide those who have dropped out opportunities to get a high school diploma and access to post-secondary education ›› Example: • Gateway to College programs are found at community colleges around the U.S. work with young adults ages 16-21, to help them earn a diploma and/or college credits, while providing a very supportive environment.

Source: Brookings 2014

3.5.5 City service delivery

125. Service provision in Malaysia is largely held at the federal government level and this is exclusively the case on areas such as general administration (policing, criminal justice), education (pre-school to higher education), and health (primary care and hospitals) (CLGF 2013: 92). Service areas including urban transport and housing and urban planning have greater involvement of city administrations; economic planning (strategies, investment promotion, investment incentives and monitoring) falls entirely outside of the city government’s scope (CLGF 2013: 92). There are differences between DBKL and MPAJ, however, as DBKL shares its responsibilities with federal agencies—particularly the Ministry of Federal Territories—and MPAJ shares responsibilities both with federal and Selangor state government agencies.

126. The federal government united public transportation under one roof in 2010, by creating the Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD). SPAD comes directly under the purview of the Prime Minister and designs the policies, planning and regulating of all aspects of train, bus and taxi services, as well as road and rail-based

114 Annexes freight transport (SPAD).34 SPAD designs policy and planning for bus network and stations, rail network and stations, taxis and other land transport for the DBKL and MPAJ jurisdictions. It is also responsible for the NKEA priorities on a High Speed Rail to connect Kuala Lumpur to Singapore, and on coordinating with Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Corp (created in 2011) in order to integrate existing rail networks and transit and develop a new MRT system for Greater KL/KV.

127. One of Kuala Lumpur’s transportation issues is the emphasis on automobile use as opposed to mass transit. Besides the implications this has on traffic congestion and the environment, this underutilizes the effects of agglomeration at the city level and the economic benefits created by dense urban networks. Box 3-5 describes the experiences of Los Angeles and Seoul in addressing the challenges caused by extensive car use, and increasing urban density.

128. While not applicable to Greater KL/KV, Malaysia has elsewhere in the country established Regional Corridor authorities, such as with the Iskandar Development Region (IRDA) authority. The box below discusses the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), which has been successful in uniting several service delivery functions under one institution while streamlining as opposed to adding complexity to governance arrangements. The GMCA in many ways is moving towards the Greater London Authority in assuming more strategic functions for its metropolitan area (Wilcox et. al. 2014). Cities receiving more authority—if they can “prove their worth”— remains a novel concept for the United Kingdom, as the U.K. is considered “one of the most centralized OECD countries” (BBC 27 January 2014) (Wilcox et. al. 2014: 2)35. Indeed, Manchester ranks among the “least powerful” cities in the European Union index of city power, scoring low in several indicators similar to those included in this mayor’s wedge framework (European Union 2007: A5).36

34 Available at: http://www.spad.gov.my/about-us/what-we-do. 35 Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25909238 36 The European Union’s index of city power is a weighted index based on: city population (2001), administrative structure, expenditure per resident, local expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure, proportion of local income from local taxation and local government tax receipts as a percentage of member state receipts.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 115 Box 3-5 Polycentricity and public transport: Los Angeles and Seoul

What do Los Angeles and Seoul have in common? Both cities are world leaders in population density, and density takes a polycentric form in the two cities—increasing the likelihood of driving and automobile dependency, as opposed to transit use. Residents are forced to visit multiple locations to run multiple errands, as opposed to accomplishing multiple errands at a single location (Rand 2008: xxxiii).

Los Angeles was built around the car, offering a stark contrast to U.S. cities like New York and Chicago, which had much more concentrated urban density. However, while Los Angeles has an identity for sprawling development, it is quite densely populated at the regional level. The cities’ surrounding suburbs are much denser than those of other cities. Compounding this issue for Los Angeles, a 2007 study found that jobs in the region are decentralizing over time, with employment clusters increasing by 10-15% from 1980 and 2000, and jobs in downtown Los Angeles decreasing by 20% during the same time period (Rand 2008: 63). Figure 34 below presents the density of jobs versus parking spaces per job (among central business districts of major world cities), to reinforce the argument that “A big reason Angelenos drive everywhere is that they can park everywhere, generally free” (Rand 2008: 74). Figure 35 looks at the relationship between high-speed transit and population per square mile, suggesting a positive relationship between dense metropolitan regions and high-speed transit options and that Los Angeles may be lagging in this regard (Rand 2008: 70).

Figure 3-4: Density compared to two transit factors (a) Density of Jobs versus Parking Spaces per Job (Central business districts of major world cities); (b) Population Density and High Speed Transit Density (Major U.S. Metro Areas)

Tackling these issues requires that Los Angeles continue to employ a combination of strategies, which include land-use reforms related to zoning, density, parking supply and the mixing of uses, and major infrastructure investments to improve transit options (Rand 2008: xx). Los Angeles has employed significant capital investments in infrastructure in the last few years, pursuing devel- opment along new transit options. Metro Rapid, the city’s BRT line, has achieved success in ridership along its corridor, but is yet to attract major corridor development. The LA Metro Gold Line, however, has seen strong developer interest and is increasingly a destination for future housing and mixed-use development (TCRP 2004: 430-434). The city will need to continue to connect major employment clusters to the rapid transit network and improve intermodal connections between light rail, subway and bus, and at the same time re-zone areas around transit stops for increased development (CTOD 2010: 61) (TCRP 2004: 434).

Source: Brookings 2014

116 Annexes Box 3-5 Continued

Seoul experienced rapid economic growth and urbanization in the second half of the 20th century, going from a population of 1.6 million in 1955 to 10.6 million in 1990. The number of registered cars in the city also substantially increased, from 27,000 in 1967 to 2.9 million in 2008. Decentralization efforts from 1990 to 2005 sought to reduce the population increase, and relieve the city of its problems of overconcentration (Kim & Han 2011: 146-147). Korea adopted a national government act, the Capital Region Readjustment plan, which limited the establishment of new factories and new universities in the Capital Region and promoted the building of urban sub-centers (Kim & Han 2011: 147). In terms of the latter, 26 new towns were built in the Seoul Metropolitan Area in the last three decades, increasing the usage of cars and demand for highway infrastructure (World Bank 2013: 64). Seoul has a road network of 8093 km as of 2008, and its subway network coverers 64.4% of its territory (Kim & Han 2011: 147). Notwithstanding the extensive public transit network, job concentration in districts throughout the Seoul region, and excessive development around Seoul, led to long distance commuting and increased car usage, causing traffic congestion and pollution (Kim & Han 2011: 152).

Mayor Myung-bak Lee, Seoul mayor from 2002-2006, sought to “make a city where people come first, not cars” (World Bank 2013: 66). His administration did this by removing highways in the city center, and regenerating the areas for public use. Seoul also encouraged households to settle in the central city and redevelopment districts, reversing the flow of residents to Seoul’s outskirts and beyond. The city offered transit options to offset the decreased roadway capacity, partly by extending subway lines and, more importantly, opening seven new lines for median-lane buses (as part of its BRT network) (World Bank 2013: 66-67). Bus operating speeds in the city have nearly doubled as a result, reaching 21 kilometers per hour. BRT buses have been more reliable than those on nonexclusive lanes (in terms of traffic time variation) and ridership on BRT buses increased 60% faster than that for non-BRT buses (from 2004 to 2005). Other significant transit transformations included introducing a semi-public transit organization to enforce rules and standards on bus routes, schedules and private operating practices. A smart fare card was introduced to allow for integrated bus-rail fares and efficient distance-based pricing (World Bank 2013: 68).

Land markets responded to the BRT investments, intensifying land uses along BRT corridors and mainly converting single-family residences to multi-family units and mixed-use projects. Land price premiums were observed within 300 meters of BRT stops and prices as well as development increased along high-amenity corridors. The concentration of high-value-added industries, employ- ing a “creative class”, increased in the converted areas and the “freeway-to-greenway” initiatives reflected indirect environment benefits (World Bank 2013: 68-69).

129. Neither DBKL nor MPAJ is responsible for designing their economic strategies, investment promotion, offering investment incentives and or monitoring their economic strategies.

»» For DBKL: • The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) carries out economic strategies and planning, • MITI, MIDA and InvestKL lead Investment promotion, • MOF and MIDA offer investment incentives, and, • PEMANDU monitors economic strategies.37

»» For MPAJ, economic development is under the purview of both federal and Selangor state agencies. • The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) as well as the State Economic Planning Unit (UPEN) carry out economic strategies and planning, • MITI, MIDA, InvestKL as well as the Selangor State Investment Corporation lead Investment promotion, • MOF, MIDA and the Selangor State Government offer investment incentives, and • PEMANDU as well as the State Government monitor economic strategies.

37 All of these are federal agencies.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 117 Box 3-6 Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Manchester is emerging as a viable alternative to London in the areas of services, culture and arts (European Union 2007: 65). The city is famously known as one of the main trade centers of the Industrial Revolution, becoming home to a thriving textile economy and then one based on heavy industry in the 1970s. The city faced decline in both textiles and heavy industry, but experienced resurgence thanks to significant public and private investment, council leadership and, importantly, the close collab- oration of the metropolitan area’s ten local authorities. This collaboration has undergone several iterations, first as a city region and most recently as a combined authority. While it has endured and been relatively successful, regional coordination has had a number of difficulties including appearing overly complex (and difficult to engage with) to the public, and political disagreements between different local authority councils stalling joint decisions and initiatives (World Bank 2008).

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) was established in 2011 to cover ten local authorities (see the figure below on Greater Manchester). The GMCA works with its constituent authorities in a set of powers and responsibilities in eco- nomic development and transport. This includes for example developing a Greater Manchester Strategy, an economic strategy, and establishing Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) as GMCA’s executive body with respect to transport functions (Smith July 2012). The GMCA, TfGM and other Greater Manchester institutions have clearly defined roles that are based on agreements between the area local authorities. Notable achievements for GMCA include: major refurbishment of the Bolton and Rochdale railway stations as part a city region transport investment program; raising an annual “Revolving Infrastructure Fund” worth £30 million and permission for the building of up to 7,000 new homes by 2017. It is also a testament to the GMCA’s success that London-style powers are now being recommended to Manchester, as the first U.K. city to follow London’s regional government model (Wilcox et. al. 2014: 11).

Figure 3-5: Greater Manchester

Regional authority typologies for local service provision in the UK

The United Kingdom has recently instituted two programs of regional coordination, uniting local governments in regions around certain service delivery functions. There are 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) that cover all English local authorities. LEPs are meant to provide strategic leadership in local economic priorities. Figure 3-6 shows the geography of the 39 LEPs. As a more formal alternative, Combined Authorities are legal bodies that can be set up by two or more contiguous local authorities. The box below presents the two institutional alternatives.

118 Annexes Box 3-7 Regional arrangements for local authorities in the UK

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) were created in Figure 3-6: LEPs in the UK 2010, in order to “provide the strategic leadership in their areas to set out local economic priorities” and “create the right environment for business and growth” (Bolton June 2012). LEPs are informal structures governed by a board of volunteers, which includes a private sector chair and members from local authorities, business based in the LEP area, public bodies including universities and third sector representatives. LEPs now receive grant funding by the central government in order to identify and carry out their objectives. Figure 3-6, to the right, represents the 39 local enterprise partnerships (Bolton June 2012).

Combined authorities are formal regional bodies encom- passing two or more local authorities (and usually coincid- ing with a natural economic area) that wish to collaborate closely on economic development and transport-related initiatives. Combined authorities are assigned functions by their constituent local authorities, in the areas of eco- nomic development, regeneration and integrated public transport. Among the intended benefits of such structures are: improved alignment, coordination and delivery of economic development and transport-related initiatives, as well as a means of steering significant streams of work (Smith July 2012). According to the Centre for Cities, the combined authorities are an effective route to implemented economic development policies at a spatial scale that matches cities’ economic footprints—as this spatial scale often covers more than one local authority (Smith 2012).

3.5.6 Business regulations and licensing

130. Malaysia ranks among the top countries in the World Bank Group’s Doing Business survey, showcasing its continued emphasis on maintaining a superior general business environment. Malaysia’s regional comparator economies also perform very well. At 18th worldwide in ease of doing business, Malaysia is behind Singapore which ranks first, Hong Kong which ranks third and Korea which ranks fifth (World Bank 2014: 8). Starting a business is done through the Companies Commission of Malaysia one-stop shop, a national agency under the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism (World Bank 2014: 20). Development approval, or obtaining a construction permit, is carried out through an application at a One Stop Center (OSC)—every local government in Malaysia should have its own OSC. The OSC refers approval submissions to all necessary government departments, including the Planning Department, Building Department, Engineering Department, Fire and Rescue Department, Sewerage Agency and Water Agency. Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s One Stop Center manages this process in Malaysia’s capital (World Bank 2014: 27-30).

131. DBKL, MPAJ, as well as all Malaysia local governments, have responsibility over zoning and land use regulations. However, land titles are granted by land offices at higher tiers of government—the Ministry of Federal Territories for DBKL and Selangor State Government for MPAJ. Kuala Lumpur has also been able to perform rather well in terms of urban regeneration, through its repurposing of land throughout the city. Most notably this has included redeveloping the city center and revitalizing the area along the Klang River, with the latter efforts aimed at creating a waterfront of high economic value.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 119 3.6 Examples of Formulae for Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers

3.6.1 Formulae for Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Australia

Background: Federal-State Financial Relations 132. Australia is notable for the centralization of revenue-raising and a comprehensive system of intergovernmental fiscal transfers. To address both vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances, the federal government makes a large amount of intergovernmental transfers. The bulk of transfers are from the federal government to state governments. Local government, the third tier of government, is a state responsibility and has the service delivery and revenue raising powers given to it by the states38. The federal government collects 81 percent of all government revenue but is responsible for only 61 percent of outlays, while states collect 17 percent of revenue and incur 33 percent of outlays (CGC 2008).

133. Fiscal transfers are administered by Australia’s Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC), an independent statutory advisory body established in 1933. CGC members are appointed by the federal government. The Commission makes recommendations in consultation with the federal government and the states. It aims to ensure that each state has the fiscal capacity to provide the same standard quality of public services39. Three equalization pillars are used to achieve equalization: reflect what States collectively do, be policy neutral and be practical (Morris and others 2004). The Commission reviews the methodology for transfers and make adjustments every five years.

134. The major reform of Australian federal fiscal relations happened in 2000. With the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) and a new intergovernmental agreement (IGA 2000), certain state taxes were abolished. All revenue from the GST would be shared among the states on the basis of horizontal fiscal equalization. GST became the main source of general revenue assistance from the federal government to the states (CGC 2008).

135. Fiscal transfers take two main forms (Commonwealth of Australia 2015):

A. General Revenue Assistance: untied monthly funding that the states may use as they see fit. Over 98% of general revenue assistance is the allocation of GST revenue, which is based on a comprehensive formula. Other general revenue assistance includes payments to the Australian Capital Territory, and royalty pay- ments to Western Australia and Northern Territory.

B. Specific Payments: including specific purpose payments (SPPs) and national partnership payments (NPPs) sourced from the national budget to achieve national aims or provide funds for particular purposes. The SPPs mainly support services of workforce development, health and housing. They are distributed amongst the states in accordance with population shares of that year and the growth in services provision activity such as hospital and school services in that jurisdiction. The NPPs facilitate reforms or specified projects, where payments are aligned with project achievements.

136. In 2015-2016, the federal government is providing the states with A$107.7 billion in total payments, accounting for around 5.8% of GDP and 45% of state revenues (Commonwealth of Australia 2015). The total payments include specific payments of $50 billion and general revenue assistance of $57.7 billion.

38 Local governments are responsible for services such as local roads, building standards and waste disposal. They raise revenue through rates on property in their jurisdiction and various fees and fines. Transfers from the federal government to municipal governments are channeled through the states (Searle 2002: p17-18). 39 The transfers aim to equalize State fiscal capacities, not the actual fiscal outcomes because States choose to provide different levels of service, impose different tax rates or acquire different levels of assets. (CCG 2015)

120 Annexes Formulae Used for Transfers 137. Fiscal equalization in Australia aims to achieve a situation where, after distributing the GST, each state has the fiscal capacity to provide the same services, charge the same taxes and achieve the same per capita budget result (CGC 2014a). Since states differ in fiscal circumstances such as size of the tax base and the unit cost of providing services, the actual GST entitlement of each state varies.

138. According to the Commonwealth of Australia’s Update Report (2014b), a state’s GST allocation is calculated as:

assessed GST requirementi=

assessed expensesi + assessed investmenti + assessed lendingi

- assessed revenuei - other paymentsi

»» assessed expenses: the expenses state i would incur to provide average services. It is the sum of 11 categories of expenses that the Commission defines that all states incur to provide general services. Each category assessed expenses is estimated by multiplying the national average expense per capita by its category disability factor and its population. The disability factor is calculated by relating its position to the average position40.

»» assessed investment: the investment state i would make to have the infrastructure required to provide average services. It is calculated by subtracting the assessed level of infrastructure required at the start of the year from the assessed level of infrastructure required at the end of the year and multiplying the result by the state’s unit cost disability41.

»» assessed net lending: the net lending state i would make to finish the year with the average per capita net financial assets. It is calculated by subtracting the state’s population share of the total net financial worth at the start of the year from its population share of total net financial worth at the end of the year.

»» assessed revenue: the revenue state i would raise if it made the average revenue raising effort. It is the sum of assessed revenue for seven categories that the Commission determines as revenue sources in the estimation42. For each category, it is calculated by multiplying the national average tax rate and the state’s tax base.

»» other payments: revenue from Commonwealth payments including SPPs and NPPs.

139. The calculation is compiled using data from the annual operating statements of the states’ general government sectors sourced from the ABS Government Finance Statistics.

40 For service delivery expenses component, if the proportion of a state’s population aged 15 to 64 is 10% above the average, it is assumed the state’s per capita expenses on vocational education would be 10% above average. The disability factor for a category is estimated combining each component. Factors are added if they are independent and multiplied if they interact (CGC 2014b). 41 The disability here is estimated in a similar way with expense disability factor, by relating its position to the national average position. 42 The categories for revenue include payroll tax, land tax, stamp duty on conveyances, insurance tax, motor taxes, mining revenue and other revenue (CGC 2014b).

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 121 3.6.2 Formulae for Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Indonesia

140. Intergovernmental fiscal transfers in Indonesia consist of three main components: Dana Alokasi Umum (DAU), Dana Alokasi Khusus (DAK) and Dana Bagi Hasil (DBH). DAU and DBH are unconditional grants, while DAK finances subnational projects based on national priorities. DAU and DAK are formula-based transfers; DBH is based on fixed percentage shares. Transfers from the central government are still the largest source of revenues for subnational governments in Indonesia.

Dana Alokasi Umum (DAU) 141. DAU aims to balance the fiscal capacities of subnational governments. It is transferred directly to subnational governments on a monthly basis, and subnationals have complete discretion over the use of DAU received.

142. According to Law 33 (2004), DAU should be provided in a “proportionate, democratic, fair and transparent manner” by taking into account “local potential (fiscal capacity and conditions and local needs)” (Shah and others 2012). The grant allocation is calculated as the sum of a basic allocation (PWBA) and a fiscal gap allocation (FG).

DAUi = Basic Allocationi + Fiscal Gap Allocationi

»» Basic Allocation (PWBA): funds a portion of the subnational government’s civil servant wage bill43. It is allocated by the relative percentage share of each local government or provincial government in the total actual bill. Mathematically it is calculated as:

PWBAi = (Wage Billi / Total Wage Bill) * (Total DAU PWBA)

»» Fiscal Gap Allocation (FG): the estimated difference between a subnational government’s fiscal needs and its fiscal capacity:

— Fiscal Gap Allocationi = Fiscal needsi Fiscal Capacityi

»» Fiscal needs (EN) is calculated by multiplying a composite index by the average aggregate spending. The index is developed based on relative population, relative area, relative construction price index, inverse of human development index, and inverse of relative nominal per capita GRDP (gross regional domestic product). The weights for the above mentioned factors are assigned to achieve a given numerical value for the Williamson’s Index44, as shown in Table 1 (Shah and others 2012).

Fiscal Needsi * composite indexi

»» Fiscal capacity (FC) is the sum of = weighted average fiscalown-source needs revenues, non-resource tax sharing as well as resource and mining tax sharing45. The weights for individual revenue sources are assigned to achieve a given numerical value for the Williamson’s Index for each year. Table 1 provides the index values for the year 2011 (Shah and others 2012).

j j Fiscal Capacityi i * I )

= ∑ ( R 43 The wage bill variable in the equation uses the actual wage bill from the previous year. 44 Williamson’s Index is a regional inequality index developed by JG Williamson (1965). It is an aggregate measure of the dispersion of regional levels of per capita income about the national mean. Each regional observation is weighted by its share in the national population. 45 j j i is jurisdiction i’s amount of revenue from source j. I is the composite index for source of revenue j.

R 122 Annexes

R_i^j is jurisdiction i’s amount of revenue from source j. I^j is the composite index for source of revenue j. Table 3-14: DAU Variable Weights, 2011

Province Cities/Districts DAU (2011) variable weight Fiscal Need Variables Population 30.00% 30.00% Area 15.00% 13.50% Construction price index 30.00% 30.00% Inverse of human development index 10.00% 10.00% Index of Inverse per capita GRDP 15.00% 16.50% Fiscal Capacity Variables Own-source revenue 50.00% 93.00% Tax revenue 80.00% 80.00% Resource sharing 95.00% 63.00%

Source: Ministry of Finance, Government of Indonesia, cited in Shah et al. 2012

Dana Alokasi Khusus (DAK) 143. DAK is a capital grant sourced from the national budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara, APBN) and finances subnational projects that the central government deems are of national priority. DAK funds capital spending and cannot be used for research, training, administration, or official travel. DAK accounts for around 5% of the national budget and funds activities across 22 sectors. Funds are transferred each year in three tranches. The first tranche depends on a subnational government’s submission of its budget to the central government, and the latter two tranches depend on the depletion of funds from the previous tranche. (World Bank 2012)

144. The allocation of DAK is a two-fold process. First, there is a system for determining a subnational government’s eligibility to receive DAK, based on fiscal capacity, regional characteristics and special criteria such as regional autonomy and disadvantaged regions, as shown in Figure 1.

145. Second, once eligibility for DAK is established, the atual allocation is based on a comprehensive formula. The total DAK allocation that subnational government i receives from the central government is the sum of DAK allocated for each sector (e.g. education, health, agriculture, etc.) for that subnational government. The DAK that subnational government i receives for sector j is calculated by multiplying its weighted share by the total DAK allocated to the sector. Mathematically the process is presented as below (Ministry of Finance 2015):

education health agriculture trade DAK allocationi = DAKi + DAKi + DAKi i

j + ⋯ + DAK Weightingi DAK allocation j = * Total DAK for sector j i Weightingj

j �j � j j Weightingi = (0.8 * technical indicatori +∑ 0.2 * i ) * construction cost indexi

j fiscal & regionalj indexj = (0.8 * ITi + 0.2 * IFWi ) * IKKi

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 123

R_i^j is jurisdiction i’s amount of revenue from source j. I^j is the composite index for source of revenue j. »» Weighting: is determined by subnational government i’s technical indicator, fiscal and regional index and construction cost index. Weightingj is the total weighting of all eligible subnational governments in sector j. ∑ »» Technical indicator (IT): reflects the condition of infrastructure in sector j in subnational government i. It is determined by summing up individual weighted component scores that are determined by the relevant national government line ministry46.

»» Fiscal and Regional index (IFW): the combination of fiscal capacity index (IFN) and regional index (IKW).

»» Fiscal capacity index (IFN) is the ratio of a subnational government’s fiscal capacity to the national average fiscal capacity. A subnational government’s fiscal capacity is calculated by subtracting its wage bill for civil servants from the sum of its own-source revenue and all other transfers received from the central government.

»» The regional index (IKW) is a composite of indices that take account the status of certain subnational governments that are “lagging’, in border areas, or remote islands.

IFW = 0.5IFN-1 + 0.5IKW

i IFNi i/ ) Numberfiscal of eligible capacity regions = fiscal capacity (�

i = own – source revenuei + DAUi + DBHi – wage billi

fiscal capacity »» Construction cost index (IKK): reflects varying levels of the costs of construction across the country. The index for each jurisdiction is determined by the Ministry of Public Works based on recent actual data of the value of construction contracts for civil works across all provinces.

Dana Bagi Hasil (DBH) 146. DBH is the mechanism for revenue sharing. The central government raises revenue and returns part of this revenue by allocating a predefined share of revenues to the originating jurisdiction. Distributions are by provincial point of origin; producing districts within provinces receive larger portions than non-producing districts. Subnational governments have total discretion over the use of allocated funds (World Bank 2012). These transfers accounted for 25 percent of total central transfers in 2010 and financed 20 percent of subnational expenditures (Shah and others 2012).

147. DBH includes both shared tax and non-tax revenues. Shared tax revenue comes from property tax, taxes on the transfer of property titles and personal income tax. Non-tax revenue sharing is based on revenues from natural resources, including oil, natural gas and geothermal energy, mining, forestry and fisheries. For each type of revenue, the central government and subnational government share in accordance to predefined percentages. For instance, DBH from general mining is shared between central, provincial, and local governments at 20 percent, 16 percent, and 64 percent, respectively (Dyah 2012).

46 For example, IT for education sector is determined by components such as classroom conditions, school toilet conditions, etc. Each component is scored by the relevant national line ministry.

124 Annexes Figure 3-7: Allocation Process for DAK

(General Criteria) Yes Fiscal Capacity IFN Ineligible for this sector

No (Special Criteria) PAPUA Special Yes No Ineligible Technical Indicator IT>0 Construction Cost Index IKK Autonomy & Yes Disadvantaged Regions Technical Weighting Weighting (Special Criteria) Yes IFWRegional*IKK IT*IKK

Index IFW <1 * 0.8 * 0.2 Fiscal and Regional DAK Weighting Index No BD j = IKK (0.8 IFW+0.2 IT) Fiscal and Regional i * *

Ineligible Fiscal Capacity DAK for sector j Index IFN Index DAK j = (BD j / BD j ) * Total DAK Regional i i j i ∑ Source: Ministry of Finance 2015; SMERU Research Institute 2008

3.7 Annex 3 References

Abbott, J. 2011. “Regions of cities: Metropolitan governance and planning in Australia”, in Xu, J., Yeh A., editors, Gover- nance and Planning of Mega-City Regions – An international comparative perspective. Routledge, New York, p 172-190

Adi, P.H. 2005. “The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Economics Growth”. Journal of Interdisciplines. Satya Wacana Christian University. Volume XVII Number 2-3. August. (National Accredited).

Alfsen-Norodom, C. 2004. “Managing the Megacity for Global Sustainability: The New York Metropolitan Region as an Urban Biosphere Reserve.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, vol. 1023, pp. 125-141.

Andersson, M. 2012. “Metropolitan Management – Approaches and Implications”. Available at: http://siteresources. worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1369969101352/Andersson.pdf

Ballaguer-Coll, T., Prior, D., Tortosa-Ausina, E. 2006. “Decentralization and Efficiency in Spanish Local Government”. (Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Economicas 2006)

BBC. UK. n.d. “One of most centralized OECD countries”. 27 January 2014. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/busi- ness-25909238 (Retrieved October 2014).

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 125 Bird, Richard M., and Michael Smart. 2002. “Intergovernmental fiscal transfers: International lessons for developing countries.” World Development 30 (6): 899-912.

Bolton, T. 2011. “Local Enterprise Partnerships: A Great LEP forward?” Centre for Cities. June 2012.

Brinkhoff, T. 2011. “The Principal Agglomerations of the World”. Available at: www.citypopulation.de

Cantarero, D. and Pascual, M. 2008. “Analysing the impact of fiscal decentralization on health outcomes: empirical evi- dence from Spain” (Applied Economics Letter 2008)

Central Intelligence Agency. N.d. “The World Factbook”. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the- world-factbook/geos/id.html

Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2010.”Creating Successful Transit-Oriented Districts in Los Angeles: A Citywide Toolkit for Achieving Regional Goals”. February 2010.

Civic Alliance. 2006. “About Civic Alliance, Regional Planning Association”. Available at: www.civicalliance.org

Commonwealth of Australia. 2015. Budget Paper No. 3 - Federal Financial Relations 2015-2016. Canberra.

Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2008.The Last 25 Years. Canberra.

Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2014a. Report on GST Revenue Sharing Relatives 2014 Update. Canberra.

Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2014b.The GST Distribution Model – A Mathematical Presentation. Canberra: Com- monwealth Grants Commission

Commonwealth Grants Commission. 2015. Report on state revenue sharing relativities: 2015 Review (Draft). Supporting information. Canberra.

Commonwealth Local Government Forum. 2013. “Country Profile: Malaysia”. Available at: http://www.clgf.org.uk/malay- sia/ (retrieved October 2014).

Commonwealth Local Government Forum. 2013 “Country Profile: South Africa”. Available at: http://www.clgf.org.uk/ south-africa/ (retrieved October 2014).

Dodge, W.R. 1996. “Regional Excellence – Governing Together to Compete Globally and Flourish Locally”. National League of Cities, Washington, DC

Dyah, S. M. 2012. The impacts of fiscal decentralization on income inequality in Indonesia. Elias, E.E. 1997. “Fiscal Decen- tralization and Municipal Governance in Mexico The case of Chihuahua”.

European Commission. 2007. “State of European Cities Report: Adding value to the European Urban Audit”.

Frank, J. 2014. “Governance and Inclusive Institutions Directorate Briefing Notes”. Governance Across Levels of Govern- ment. The World Bank, Washington, DC

Greater Vancouver Regional District. 2006. “About GVRD”. Available at: http://www.gvrd.bc.ca

126 Annexes Imron, A. 2011. “Regional Autonomy Proliferation of Region and Pseudo Local Government in Indonesia”. (Aug 2011)

Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative. (2009). Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations. Schedule D: Payment Arrangements.

Kajian Pengeluaran Publik Indonesia. 2007. “Review of Indonesian Public Expenditure 2007”. Avilable at: http://sitere- sources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1168333550999/PERHBAB7DesentralisasiFiskalKesenjan- ganDaerah.pdf

Kim, B-J. 2004. “An Assessment of Seoul Metropolitan Government Reform Strategies”. International Review of Public Administration, vol.8, no.2, pp.77-89

Kim, H.M. and Sun, S. H. 2011. “City profile: Seoul”. Cities. 13 July 2011.

Klink, J. 2007. “Recent Perspectives on Metropolitan Organization, Functions, and Governance”, in Rojas, E., Cuadra- do-Roura J.R., Güell, J.M.F., editors. Governing the Metropolis - Principles and Cases, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. p. 77-134

Land Public Transport Commission. N.d. “About SPAD”. Available at: http://www.spad.gov.my/about-us/what-we-do (retrieved October 2014).

Laquian, A. 2005. “Beyond Metropolis – The Planning and Governance of Asia’s Mega-Urban Regions”. Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, DC and The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Ma, Jun. 1997. Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfer: A Comparison of Nine Countries:(cases of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, Korea, India, and Indonesia). World bank, 1997.

McCarthy, L. 2011. “Mega-city regional cooperation in the United States and Western Europe - A comparative perspec- tive”, in Xu, J., Yeh A., editors, Governance and Planning of Mega-City Regions – An international comparative perspective. Routledge, New York. p 148-171

Metropolis. 2006. “Seoul Metropolitan Region Profile”. Available at: http://www.metropolis.org/index.asp

Ministry of Federal Territories. N.d. “Official Website of Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley”. Available at: http://app. kwpkb.gov.my/greaterklkv (retrieved October 2014).

Ministry of Finance. 2015. Modul Pengalokasian Dana Alokasi Khusus (DAK) Tahun 2015. Jakarta: Subdirektorat Dana Alo- kasi Khusus, Direktorat Dana Perimbangan, Direktorat Jenderal Perimbangan Keuangan, Kementerian Keuangan Republik Indonesia.

Moreno, F. 2013. “Fiscal Decentralization in Rural Local Governments in Mexico: Changes in Accountability and Entrepre- neurship in the Local Government Structures”

Morris, A. G., Wiltshire, K. W., Rolfe, H. A., Early, L. J., Williams, R. A., & Nicholas, M. A. 2004. Report on state revenue sharing relativities: 2004 Review. Supporting information.

Oakerson, R.J. 2004. “The Study of Metropolitan Governance”, in Feiock, R.C., editor, Metropolitan Governance – Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC. p 17-45

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 127 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2006. “The Governance of Metro-Regions”, in Com- petitive Cities in the Global Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris (and related OECD Territorial Reviews)

Pena, P. 2009. “Evaluation of the Effect Decentralization on Educational Outcomes in Spain”. Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.

Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU). 2014. “Economic Transformation Programme”. Annual Report 2013. Performance Management and Delivery Unit, Manila.

Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU). 2010. “Economic Transformation Programme. A Roadmap for Malaysia”. Performance Management and Delivery Unit, Manila.

Post, S.S. 2004. “Metropolitan Area Governance and Institutional Collective Action”, in Feiock, R.C., editor, Metropolitan Governance – Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC. p.67-92

Raich, U. 2008. “Unequal Development–Decentralization and Metropolitan Finance in Mexico City”. VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Germany

Regional Planning Association. 2006. “About RPA”. Available at: www.rpa.org

Rodriguez, V. 1987. “The Politics of Decentralization in Mexico: Divergent Outcomes of Policy Implementation”.

Resosudarmo, I.A.P. 2004. “Closer to People and Trees: Will Decentralization Work for the People and the Forest of Indo- nesia?” European Journal of Development Research. Spring 2004.

Rojas, E., Cuadrado-Roura J.R., Güell, J.M.F., editors. 2007. “Governing the Metropolis - Principles and Cases”. Inter-Amer- ican Development Bank, Washington, DC

Sansom, G. 2009. “Commonwealth of Australia”, in Steytler, N., Kinkaid, J., editors, Local Government and Metropolitan Regions in Federal Systems, McGill & Queens’s University Press, Montreal & Kingston, Canada. p 8-36

Sanz, I.A.. N.d. “Spanish Decentralization and the current autonomous state: a budgetary view”. Available at: http://www. asip.org.ar/en/content/spanish-decentralization-and-current-autonomous-state-budgetary-view

Searle, B. 2002. Federal fiscal relations in Australia-2001. International centre for economic research.

Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2006. “City Government”. Available at: http://english.seoul.go.kr/gover/main/gover_ main.htm

Shah, Anwar. Qibthiyyah, Riatu. Dita, Astrid. 2012. General Purpose Central-Provincial-Local Transfer (DAU) in Indonesia. From Gap Filling to Ensuring Fair Access to Essential Public Services for All. Jakarta: World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit.

Siddiqui K. 2004. Megacity Governance in South Asia – A Comparative Study. The University Press Limited, Dhaka.0

128 Annexes Simatupang, R.R. 2009. “Evaluation of Decentralization Outcomes in Indonesia: Analysis of Health and Education Sec- tors”. (PhD Dissertation Georgia State University Dec 2009)

Sjahrir and Katos. 2011. “Does local governments’ responsiveness increase with decentralization and democratization? Evidence from sub-national budget allocation in Indonesia”. University of Freiburg, Freiburg. (May 2011)

Slack, E. 2007. “Managing the Coordination of Service Delivery in Metropolitan Cities – The Role of Metropolitan Gover- nance”. Policy Research Working Paper. World Bank, Washington, DC.

SMERU Research Institute. 2008. The Specific Allocation Fund (DAK): Mechanisms and Uses.

Smith, R. 2012. “Combined Authorities: Stronger together?” Centre for Cities. July 2012.

Smoke, P. 2013. “Metropolitan Cities in the National Fiscal and Institutional Structure” in Bahl, Linn and Wetzel, editors. Financing Metropolitan Governments in Developing Countries. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.

Stren, R. 2007. “Urban governance in developing countries: Experiences and challenges”, in Hambleton, R., Gross J., editors, Governing Cities in a Global Era – Urban Innovation, Competition, and Democratic Reform, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. p 57-70

Suzuki, H, Cervero, R. and Iuchi, K. 2013. “Transforming Cities within Transit: Transit and Land-Use Integration for Sus- tainable Urban Development”. Urban Development Series. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

The Brookings Institute. 2014. “The Plummeting Labor Market Fortunes of Teens and Young Adults”. Metropolitan Policy Program. March 2014.

The Rand Corporation. 2008. “Transportation, Space, and Technology”. Moving Los Angeles: Short-term Policy Options for Improving Transportation.

The World Bank. 2008. “City Regions: Emerging Lessons from England”. Directions in Urban Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

The World Bank. 2015. “Economy Profile 2015: Malaysia.” Doing Business 2015: Going Beyond Efficiency. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

The World Bank. Unpublished. “Draft Concept Note for a Competitive Cities Knowledge Base”. December 2013.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 2004. “Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects”. TCRP Report 102.

Turan, N. 2011. “Towards an Ecological Urbanism for Istanbul”, in Sorensen, A., Okata, J., editors, Megacities–Urban Form, Governance and Sustainability. Springer, Germany. p 245-287.

United Cities Local Government (UCLG) and the World Bank. 2009. “Decentralization and Local Democracy in the World: First Global Report from United Cities Local Government”. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

United Cities Local Government (UCLG) and the World Bank. 2011. “Local Government Finance: The Challenges of the 21st Century”. Second Global Report from United Cities Local Government. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 129 United Cities Local Government (UCLG). 2008. “UCLG Country Profiles: Indonesia”. Available at: http://www.cities-local- governments.org/gold/Upload/country_profile/Indonesia.pdf (retrieved October 2014).

United Cities Local Government (UCLG). 2008. “UCLG Country Profiles: Malaysia”. Available at: http://www.cities-local- governments.org/gold/Upload/country_profile/Malaysia.pdf (retrieved October 2014).

Webster, D., Cai, J., and Maneepong, C. 2006. “Metropolitan Governance in China: Priorities for Action in the Context of Chinese Urban Dynamics and International Experience.” Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/2006/09/7690452/metropolitan-governance-china-priorities-action-context-chinese-urban-dynamics-internation- al-experience

Western Economic Diversification Canada .2006. “The Livable City”. (Vancouver Working Group Discussion Paper). Gov- ernment of Canada, Ottawa.

Wilcox, Z., Nohrova, N. and Williams. 2014. “Breaking Boundaries: empowering city growth through cross-border collab- oration”. Centre for Cities. March 2014.

Williamson, J.G. 1965. Regional inequality and the process of national development: a description of the patterns. Eco- nomic development and cultural change, 1-84.

World Bank, n.d. World Bank Database. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/

World Bank. 1991. “Mexico: Decentralization and Urban Management Urban Sector Study”. World Bank, Washington, DC. p. 38

World Bank. 2010. “World Development Report 2009 Reshaping Economic Geography”. World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2012. Indonesia Subnational Public Expenditure Review. Optimizing Subnational Performance for Better Services and Faster Growth.

Yang, J. 2009. “Spatial Planning in Asia – Planning and Developing Megacities and Megaregions”, in Ross, C.L., editor, Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness. Island Press, Washington, DC. p. 35-52

130 Annexes 4. SOCIAL EXCLUSION (ANNEXES FOR CHAPTER 5)

4.1 Field Work Implementation Details

4.1.1 Calendar of events for qualitative field work

Table 4-1: Calendar of events for quantitative field work

Type of No Dates Time Place Discussion Attendance Remarks Activities Completed

Meeting Helene & the local WB Project Briefing on the project 1 18 Sept (Thurs) 2.30pm – 4.30pm 5 Team Preparation dynamics

The real disadvantaged target 2 19 Sept (Fri) 2.00pm – 6.00pm MySkills Foundation, KL FGD 1 29 group. All Indians

All Malays under a NH activity 3 20 Sept(Sat) 1.30pm – 5.30pm Sri Pantai Flats, KL FGD 2 11 centre

4 21 Sept(Sun) 6.00pm – 8.00pm Telok Indah,Prai, Penang FGD 3 23 An urban poor NH. All Indians

Good representation from 5 22 Sept (Mon) 9.30am-11.30am Penang RTD 1 16++ Agencies & CSOs

All urban poor youths, Mixed 6 22 Sept (Mon) 2.30pm-5.30pm Pusat Latihan Yakin Kejayaan FGD 4 29 ethnic group

7 22 Sept(Mon) 9.00pm-11.00pm Sungai Pinang, Penang FGD 5 15 An urban poor NH. All Malays

8 25 Sept (Thurs) 8.00pm-11.00pm Sri Sarawak flats, KL FGD 6 8 Urban Poor Malays

Centre for Indigenous People 9 27 Sept 2014 2.00pm-6.00pm Jireh Centre FGD 7 17 Group, Tuaran, Near KK

Malays & Indigenous People 10 28 Sept (Sun) 11.00am-1.00pm Seri Maju Flats, KK FGD 8 11 Group

People living on water, 11 28 Sept (Sun) 3.00pm-6.00pm Tanjung Aru FGD 9 5 Naturalised Malays (ABIM)

12 29 Sept (Mon) Morning KBS Office, Kota Kinabalu RTD 2 10++ Agency Representatives

Malays & Indigenous People 13 29 Sept (Sun) 2.00pm-5.00pm Grace & Mercy Centre KK FGD 10 12 Group, near KK (Penampang)

14 2 Oct (Thurs) 2.30pm-5.30pm Jab. Belia dan Sukan, KL RTD 3 10++ Critical Agency Representatives

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 131 Table 4-1: Continued Type of No Dates Time Place Discussion Attendance Remarks Activities Completed

15 10 Oct (Fri) Night Arriving at JB Preparation

16 11 Oct (Sat) 3.00pm-6.00pm FGD organised by JEWEL FGD 11 16 Multi-ethnic group

17 11 Oct (Sat) 9.00pm-10.00pm PPR Seri Kempas FGD 12 10 Malays from the neighbourhood

18 12 Oct (Sun) 3.00pm-6.00pm FGD organised by MIBA FGD 13 14 Indians

PPR Flats Larkin organised by 19 12 Oct (Sun) 9.00pm-12.00pm FGD 14 17 Malays KRT

20 13 Oct (Mon) 9.30am-12.30pm RTD in Johor RTD 4 10++ Agency Representatives

FGD organised by Calvary Mixed Group of Indians & 21 13 Oct (Mon) 2.30pm-5.00pm FGD 15 21 Centre Chinese

23 17 Oct (Fri) Night Arriving at Kuantan Preparation

FGD at Tmn Alor Akar Low cost housing area, RP Alor 24 18 Oct (Sat) 2.30pm-5.30pm FGD 16 22 organised by JPNIN Akar, Kuantan

FGD among the OAs in the city 25 18 Oct (Sat) 8.30pm-10.00pm FGD 17 6 OA young people by an NGO

26 19 Oct (Sun) 11.00am-1.30pm FGD organised by a CSO FGD 18 6 Street Kids, Malays

#Indians. This FGD is treated FGD organised at Semambu by 27 19 Oct (Sun) 9.00pm-11.00pm FGD 19 4 as Key informant interview. JPNIN None are high risk youths

28 20 Oct (Mon) 9.30am-12.30pm RTD, Kuantan RTD 5 10++ Agency Representatives

KL Street community. Many 29 28 Oct (Tues) 2.30pm-5.00pm FGD with KL Street people FGD 20 4 came but only 4 of the target ge group

30 30 Oct (Thurs) Will be confirmed Leaving for Kuching Preparation

31 31 Oct (Fri) 2.30pm-5.00pm RTD, Kuching RTD 6 10++ Agency Representatives

FGD in Kuching at Kota #Organised by Mr Nicholas, 32 1 Nov (Sat) 11.00am-1.00pm sentosa, Pasar Batu 7, near FGD NA NGO. Key Informant Interview Public Bank

132 Annexes Table 4-1: Continued Type of No Dates Time Place Discussion Attendance Remarks Activities Completed

FGD at 1AZAM STC, UNACO 1 AZAM Dayak participants 33 1 Nov (Sat) After 3.30pm FGD 21 28 Supermarket organised by Datu Ose.

FGD at RT Taman Sri Makmur, 34 2 Nov (Mon) 11.00am-1.00pm FGD 22 64 Organised by JPNIN Kuching

Putrajaya RTD on Data RTD 7 on Project Stakeholders & EPU 35 Meeting with EPU 2.30pm 15++ clarifications Data Officials

4.1.2 Summary of participants in focus group discussions

Table 4-2: City by city gender participation

Gender No Cities Male Female Total 1 Kuala Lumpur 39 13 52 2 Penang 52 15 67 3 Kota Kinabalu 30 15 45 4 Johor 44 34 78 5 Kuantan 31 3 34 6 Kuching 44 48 92 GRAND TOTAL 240 128 368

Figure 4-1: City by city participants in focus group discussions

25% 25%

21% 20% 18%

15% 14% 12%

10% 9%

5%

0% Penang Kota Johor Kuantan Kuala Kuching Kinabalu Lumpur

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 133 Table 4-3: City by city ethnicity breakdown of participants

Cities Malays Chinese Indians Indigenous Others Total Kuala Lumpur 20 0 29 1 2 52 Penang 22 0 45 0 0 67 Kota Kinabalu 4 1 0 28 12 45 Johor 35 12 31 0 0 78 Kuantan 27 0 0 7 0 34 Kuching 35 4 0 53 0 92 GRAND TOTAL 143 17 105 101 2 368 Percentage 38.9% 4.6% 28.5% 27.5% 0.5% 100%

Table 4-4: Educational attainment among focus group participants

Cities None < UPSR < PMR < SPM STPM TOTAL Kuala Lumpur 1 17 11 22 1 52 Penang 2 9 14 41 1 67 Kota Kinabalu 0 1 21 23 0 45 Johor 5 15 36 22 0 78 Kuantan 1 2 9 22 0 34 Kuching 1 9 45 37 0 92 GRAND TOTAL 10 53 136 167 2 368 Percentage 2.7% 14.4% 37.0% 45.4% 0.5% 100%

Figure 4-2: Proportion of focus group discussants working

Working 164 (45%) Not working 204 (55%)

4.1.3 Focus group discussion questionnaire

148. The study team was guided by a page long simple questionnaire, which helped them gather the basic information. Guidance was also developed to help navigate the focus group discussions. Activity based discussions were used as an ice-breaker and helped put young people at ease. As the participants worked in small groups of about five people, they answered key questions, which they then presented using the papers and colors given to them. During these presentations the research team also asked questions and clarifications. The sessions were informal as well as lively and lasted for about two hours. There was good participation among the young people. In a number of groups multiple languages were used.

134 Annexes Table 4-5: Structured questionnaire for the study on social inclusion

STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE STUDY ON SOCIAL INCLUSION CODE NO. Where your answer is “yes” tick (✓) and where your answer is “no” mark it with (X) A1. Pet Name A2. Gender ❑ Male ❑ Female A3. Age A4. Date of birth A5. House address A7. Type of house ❑ 1. Long house ❑ 2. Low cost flats ❑ 3. Low cost house ❑ 4. Others A8. If others, explain A9. No. family members A10. Contact HP A11. E-mail address ❑ 1. Islam ❑ 2. Buddhism ❑ 3. Hinduism ❑ 4. Christianity A12. Region ❑ 5. Others write in column ______❑ 1. UPSR ❑ 2. PMR A13. Education ❑ 2. BPM ❑ 4. None ❑ Primary school ❑ Lower secondary school A14. Educational institutions ❑ Higher secondary ❑ Others ______❑ Skills training A17. Participation in youth clubs A18. If yes, give details and if No, why? and activitiesactivities ❑ Yes ______❑ No ______A19. Any involvement of you in ❑ Drugs ❑ Crime ❑ Prison ❑ Court ❑ No involvement A20. Any family member has been ❑ Drug centre in ❑ Arrested for questioning ❑ In police lock up ❑ In prison A21. Any close friend has been in ❑ Drug centre ❑ Arrested for questioning ❑ In police lock up ❑ In prison A22. Any friend found it difficult to ❑ Yes A23. Any friend found it ❑ Yes study? ❑ No difficult to get a job? ❑ No Name and signature of the Enumerator Contact No. Date/Time

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 135 4.1.4 Guidelines for focus group discussions

149. Target group: At risk youth (between 15-30 years old) in six urban centers:

a. Youth who have been detained at juvenile or correction centers or prisons

b. Living in high rise flat or low cost public housing or squatters

c. Dropped out of school or educational underachievers within the school system

d. At high risk groups to drugs, alcohol, abuse & gangs

e. Homeless youth and living on the streets

f. Youth who are drug addicts and those in drug rehabilitation centers

g. Youth on motor cycle racing gangs

h. Youth out of prison, juvenile centers or detention or rehabilitation centers

i. Youth in informal groups or gangs in the low income neighborhoods

150. Overall objective of the work on social exclusion as part of the broader study on competitive cities: To better understand the nature and mechanisms of the challenges faced by the socially excluded (focusing on at risk youth) in urban areas in Malaysia, as it relates to Competitive Cities.

151. Overall objective of the Focus Group Discussions: By listening to the voices of at risk youth, identify the key issues they face and the factors contributing to their social exclusion and vulnerability, as it relates to Competitive Cities.

152. Areas of inquiry: The following areas of inquiry related to social exclusion should be explored through the FGDs:

»» Economic aspects: such as limited access to labor markets, financial resources and basic services (including Government programs). Are they able to access: Jobs, education, social services, financial services, training, and government services? Why/why not? What are the main challenges in accessing them?

»» Political aspects: such as limited opportunities to participate in decision-making, make their voices heard. What are the obstacles they face in making their voices heard?

»» Socio-cultural aspects: such as the isolation of specific groups through education, language and ethnic practices.

»» Spatial aspect: How does your housing impact your situation (positively or negatively) location, mobility (access to jobs, education not in your neighborhood), physical housing, neighborhood set up/ accessibility, social dynamics (eg. gangs, crime, peer pressure), opportunities to engage in criminal, anti- social activities, and other public safety concerns

»» General Perceptions about inclusion/exclusion: Do they perceive themselves as included or excluded from society/culture/government systems; Do they feel the government is addressing your needs? How do you feel about your future prospects in life?

136 Annexes 4.1.5 General Structure of the Focus Group Discussion

A. Start with an introduction:

a. Of the team

b. Of the objective of the FGDs: including explaining why we want to hear their voices

c. Of the agenda – stress that all the information provided is confidential

B. Exercise and group work

a. Explain the exercise

b. Break into small groups and assist the small groups as needed to re-explain the exercise

c. Report back from the small groups

C. Open discussion based on the exercise and group work

a. Facilitation of open discussion

b. Key questions to be systematically captured in all FGDs during the open discussion:

i) Why are they in the center (for focus groups with participants from centers/ programs / support groups etc.); why did they decide to join the center? Alternatively for FGD with participants not belonging to a center/ support group) Why are they not participating in a center / program / support group? ii) What would they be doing if they were not in the center / support group? iii) What more can the Government / city authorities do to help them feel more included in society? D. Filling out the questionnaire

a. Ensure the questionnaire is available in the language of the group

b. Help the participants fill out the form as needed

c. Check each form to make sure it is accurately filled-out

E. Wrap-up and thank you

a. In the write-up of the FGDs, ensure that the composition, context and location specifics of each FGD location are clearly explained.

b. Prior to starting the FGDs, each facilitator is properly briefed on the focus and general objectives.

c. It is important to encourage both boys and girls to speak up, to ensure that their perspectives are captured.

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 137 4.1.6 List of agencies in round table discussions

Table 4-6: Agencies in round table discussions

Kota Kuala Agency Penang Kinabalu Lumpur Johor Kuantan Kuching Total KBS 1 3 2 1 3 2 12 JKM 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 PDRM 2 1 0 1 0 2 6 Jab. Penjara 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 AADK 1 0 3 1 1 2 8 Sek. Tunas Bakti 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 JPNIN 1 1 1 2 1 0 6 Pendidikan 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 CSO 8 3 1 0 0 0 12 World Bank 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Research Team 4 4 2 4 4 4 22 Total 20 15 12 13 12 12 84

4.1.7 Agenda: Agency Meeting: EPU November 3rd, 2014

Malaysia: Achieving a system of competitive cities: Focus Group Discussion on Social Inclusion

Venue: Level 6, B6 Economic Planning Unit

A. Introduction - Puan Azizah bt. Hamzah, Director, K-Economy

B. Overview of World Bank Study on Competitive Cities - Justina Chen, World Bank

C. Overview of Social Inclusion Component: Scope of Work and Methodology - Dr Denison Jayasooria, KITA-UKM

D. Presentation of Youth Data and Policies by Agencies: -

a. Department of Social Welfare

b. Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development

c. Prison Department

d. Police

e. State Education Departments

E. Closing Remarks - Dr. Ramli Nordin, K-Economy

138 Annexes Summary of Programs Regular relapse prevention programme for young offenders in juvenile prison facilities; Training officers working among trafficked victims, young offenders and detainees; Leadership and personal development programmes; Follow-up programs to care for vulnerable refugee children Sets up various homes/ centres ranging from drug rehabilitation centres and orphanages to homes for skills development. Sports activities including community sports; School for music and arts; Counselling; Youth development and leadership workshops, Community Care Circles (3C); Skills program in India and Malaysia Youth related work includes providing leadership training programs for youth and young adults in rural areas. Free classes to prepare Indian students for national exams Target Group Children at risk i.e. refugees, marginalised, trafficked victims, detainees, young offenders Marginalised groups i.e. drug addicts, prostitutes, delinquents, alcoholics, destitute Indian youth Youth and young adults Indian youth Location Selangor KL, Selangor, Kedah Nationwide KL, Selangor, Penang, Johor Selangor, Kuala Lumpur N.Sembilan, Malacca, Penang, Perak, Pahang, Kedah

✓ ✓ ✓ care Social support and

✓ ✓ to services Economic / Social access

✓ ✓ ✓ Training Education /

Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

in kind Transfers

Cash transfers List of Civil Society Organizations in Malaysia working with youth at risk Organisation Global Street Mission Yayasan Aman Sri Murugan Centre SUKA Society Malaysia Indian Youth Council 4.1.8 Table 4-7: CSOs in Malaysia working with youth at risk

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 139 Summary of Programs Food and transport for school children around the Dengkil area; Financial assistance for poor children Two-year residential programme which teaches living skills and is tailored to instill discipline, guidance, spiritual formation, soft skills and leadership skill. Programme includes both General Studies and Technical Skills (Motor Vehicle skills, Furniture Making, Refigeration and Air-conditioning mechanics) Women’s protection centre; Leadership and motivational programs; Islamic education Umbrella body for all youth-related organisations in Malaysia Trainings on rape awareness, anti- sexual harassment policy, gender sensitisation, women’s leadership and political participation which target teenagers and school-going children among others; Counselling and support services for victims of domestic violence Provides homes for boys and girls aged 13-18 often street children or who come from backgrounds of abuse and neglect; Provides care and education to refugee children aged below 18 Home for children from single mother/ impoverished / needy families Home for children who are orphaned/ poor Target Group Children of school- going age

Muslim youth All youth-related organisations in Malaysia Women Youth aged 13-18 from difficult backgrounds; Refugee children Children aged 5-17; mainly Indian Children aged 8-17 Location Selangor Sabah Nationwide Nationwide KL,Selangor KL Selangor Sabah

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ care Social support and

✓ to services Economic / Social access

✓ ✓ ✓ Training Education /

Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

in kind Transfers

✓ Cash transfers Organisation Agathiar Charity Organisation Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (The Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia) (ABIM) Majlis Belia Malaysia (Malaysia Youth Council) All Women’s Action Society (AWAM) Shelter Home for Children Trinity Home Selangor Yayasan Kebajikan Suria Montfort Youth Training Centre Table 4-7: Continued

140 Annexes Summary of Programs Teenage Centre offers the following programs for teenage girls: full residential program; Weekend residential program; Preventive outreach programs. Youth Prep Centre offers the following to youth in Sabah: A ‘point of reference’ for those leaving home the first time, counselling services;help for job seekers through partnership with employers; on-going skills development Free tuition classes in English, Mathematics, Drawing and Painting, Theatre, Music Runs a teen and youth centre which offers teens and youth with alternatives to risk behavior that may expose them to gangs, violence, crime, substance abuse and the risk of HIV infection - focuses on skills development Multi-disciplinary arts academy for underprivileged children Home for underprivileged children; Community Learning Centre Home and rehabilitation centre Target Group Teenage girls (Selangor), Youth (Sabah) Secondary school students Adolescents and youth who are vulnerable and at risk in KL city centre Underprivileged children Children and youth aged 1-22 (Chinese, Indian and Orang Asli) Teenage girls and boys from challenging backgrounds Location Nationwide Selangor Selangor, Sabah KL Selangor, Malacca Johor

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ care Social support and

✓ to services Economic / Social access

✓ ✓ Training Education /

Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

in kind Transfers

Cash transfers Organisation Rakan Muda Yayasan Chow Kit StART Yayasan Sunbeams Home Pusat Kebajikan Kalvary Pusat Kebajikan Good Shepherd

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 141 Summary of Programs Counselling services; Training; Career guidance; Provide tertiary educational opportunity or trade/skills programme Shelter home for girls from poor or single parent families; Training centre for girls that provides bridal make-up and sewing classes Counselling and Care; Cyber wellness classes; Sex and Sensibility Programme; Target Group Youth Girls aged 7-18 Teenagers and young adults Location Selangor, KL Selangor Selangor ✓ ✓ ✓ care Social support and

✓ to services Economic / Social access

✓ Training Education /

Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

in kind Transfers

Cash transfers Organisation Rumah Kasih Generasi Gemilang Ozanam Service Centre Table 4-7: Continued

142 Annexes External development services: Sports Tournament for Children Institutions; Bands Tournament for Children Institutions; Childhood Education; Human Capital Development; Vocational Skills Training; Community childcare centre External rehabilitation program: Child Welfare Committee, Unrestrained children External protection: Foster parents, Child Protection Team, Kids Activity Centre, Witness Service Programme Institutional rehabilitation: School Tunas Bakti, Remand, Probation Hostels Institutional protection: Children Homes, Rumah Tunas Harapan, Special Protection Centre, Ehsan shelters (Street Children)… RM2700 one off grant to launch a new business 1. RM100-RM450/month, 2. RM250- RM500/month RM200/month apprenticeship allowance Policy Summary Children in need of assistance Children in need of assistance Children in need of assistance Children in need of assistance Children in need of assistance Underprivileged groups Children: programmes for 1. orphans or children without proper parenting; 2. children in foster care Youth in need Target Group

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Social support and care

to services Economic / Social access

Training Education /

Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

kind Transfers in

✓ ✓ ✓ Cash transfers List of Federal Government Programs for Youth Ministry / Agency Organisation Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development 4.2 Table 4-8: Federal government programs for youth

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 143 1Asrama hostels where children enjoy a more conducive learning environment and support Adult literacy class Textbook Loan Scheme (TBLS) - provision of textbooks free of charge Tuition Aid Scheme (TAS) - provision of extra classes free of charge Uniform assistance Food assistance Text books and transport assistance RM60 one-off safety jacket assistance RM300/year (secondary school) + monthly assistance RM25-RM60 (depending on primary/secondary school and poverty level) RM70/month From RM700/year in Form 1 to RM450/year Form 5 1. Grant Per Capita (pre-school, primary and secondary school) 2.School Co-curriculum 3. Schooling Assistance (primary and secondary school) - RM100 one-off Policy Summary Children from low income households Orang Asli and Penan Parents All students in government and government assisted schools Poor students with low academic achievement Students that use uniforms MOE pre-school and boarding school students All students Students in rural/remote areas and those living on the islands Poor students: Trust Fund (KWAPM) Secondary school students who excel in sports Poor students in residential schools All students in gov. schools Target Group

Social support and care

✓ ✓ to services Economic / Social access

Training Education /

Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ kind Transfers in

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Cash transfers Ministry / Agency Organisation Ministry of Education Table 4-8: Continued

144 Annexes Access to working capital (PROSPER Usahawan Muda scheme) - Up to RM50k financing (individual) or RM100k (partnership) 1Malaysia Training Scheme Programme (SL1M) - soft skills training for graduates SAY1M programme for student dropouts, which offers courses to secure employment, including internships in Government Linked Companies and the private sector. Up to RM50k financing for working capital (TEKUN Financing Scheme) Various sponsorship programmes BR1M 1. RM500 and 2. RM250, both one-off transfers RM250 one-off BB1M book vouchers Financial assistance depending on the institution Different levels of assistance through different schemes (SPC, SPT, SPIN, SDEP, SAA, SBP schemes) RM250/month Education Loan Fund Universities: tuition fees (max RM5k/year) and pocket money (RM300/month); Community colleges and polytechnics: RM3,360-RM3,660/ semester Policy Summary

Young bumiputera entrepreneurs Unemployed graduates School drop-outs Small bumiputera entrepreneurs Master and PhD students 1. Low income households and 2. single parents Form 6 and college students Students in financial need: Education Funding by National Higher Education Fund Corporation Programmes) Bumiputera students in financial need or who have suffered an accident/ disaster (MARA Foundation Community college students in need Students with disabilities in universities, community colleges and polytechnics Target Group

Social support and care

✓ ✓ to services Economic / Social access

✓ ✓ Training Education /

Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

✓ kind Transfers in

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Cash transfers Ministry of Human Resources Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad (PUNB) Tabung Ekonomi Kumpulan Usaha Niaga (TEKUN) Prime Minister’s Department Ministry of Finance Ministry / Agency Organisation Ministry of Higher Education

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 145 Loans for trainees undertaking the Malaysia Skill Certificate Level One to Five. RM200 smartphone rebate Youth Skills Training Programme provided by various institutions with fully subsidised fees and costs Policy Summary Trainees undertaking Malaysia Skills Certificate Low-income youth between ages 21-30 Indian youth aged 15 to 45 who are school drop-outs or seek to learn new skills Target Group

Social support and care

✓ to services Economic / Social access

✓ Training Education /

✓ ✓ Subsidy Type of assistance / social protection

kind Transfers in

Cash transfers Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission Various: Ministry of Youth and Sports; Ministry of Higher Education and Ministry of Human Resources Ministry / Agency Organisation Skills Development Fund Corporation (PTPK) Table 4-8: Continued

146 Annexes 4.3 Case Study: England supports affordable housing through land planning and policy

153. Land planning and policies are the primary tools used in England to facilitate the construction of affordable housing. England has a number of policies that are designed to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing and social inclusion. The most prominent are the Planning and Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) (DCLG 2011) which deals with Housing, and Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(GoUK c.1990) which provides guidance to local authorities regarding development of affordable housing. The combination of these enables local authorities – the bodies which review, negotiate and approve development proposals – to ensure affordable housing is built in compliance with national guidance on mixed housing.

154. Given the PPS3s objective to provide “sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities in all areas, both urban and rural” (DCLG 2011), the main focus of S106 planning achievements has been to facilitate tenure mix in new developments. By 2008 S106 had been successful in securing more than half of all affordable housing built in England (Monk 2010). Case studies show that successful S106 developments hold a range of tenure types and are home to a social mix of tenants. One example - Imperial Warf development in London – designed a development that would include 1,065 residential units, 515 of which were affordable housing. Subsequent revisions to the plan that reduced the number of affordable units were rejected by the planning authority, and the 515 affordable unites were eventually built and finalized before any of the market rate units were allowed to be rented or sold. Among these 515 homes, the units were designed to have: 275 units for social rent, an additional 50 units for social rent to the ‘frail elderly’ (i.e. specially adapted units), 75 shared-ownership units, 40 student accommodation units, 50 key worker47 units for rent, and 25 key worker unites for sale. Adhering to the principles of mixed use, this same building included 8,000 square meters of office floor space, 6,600 square meters of retail and restaurant floor space, 2,000 square meters for non-residential institution (the medical facility), a 175 bedroom hotel, 3,000 square meters for a health and fitness club. In addition, planning permission was contingent of the development of a park, and a riverside walk, transport access and a parking strategy (Monk 2010).

155. Evidence, such as the above, suggests that S106 has been successful in facilitating the creation of mixed communities as well as meeting affordable housing needs (Monk 2010). One study asked “how far does the provision of ‘on-site’ affordable housing contribute to the government’s objectives of creating mixed communities?” and concluded that it did a reasonable job in achieving this. It found that many of the affordable housing sites were in more expensive areas that had not traditionally been associated with affordable housing. It was highlighted that the most successful buildings in terms of harmonious communities and market sales were those in which one couldn’t tell which units were social housing and which were market housing. This is important as perceptions of social housing are rather negative and respondents fear the potential knock-on effects that low-income residents may bring, such as antisocial behavior, that could affect the market rates of their property. The study was unable to conclude whether mixed tenure has had a positive effect on the social outcomes of social housing beneficiaries.48

156. It is often argued that simply mixing tenure and ethnicity will not necessarily lead to most positive social outcomes for the disadvantaged. One researcher argues that creating mixed neighborhoods treats a symptom of inequality, not its causes. One study of mixed tenure in urban Scotland found no consistent pattern in health outcomes according to tenure type, but in areas with a large number of social housing tenants, some specific health issues had worse outcomes than in areas with a lower concentration of social housing (Lawder et al 2014). On employment, another, longitudinal study (Feng et al 2013), examined the neighborhood effects of ethnic inequality on economic activity. The study found that, overall, ethnic minorities were, more likely to become unemployed and less likely to become employed. It also concluded that living in a deprived neighborhood was

47 Key workers are defined as public sector employee who is considered to provide an essential service. The term is used in reference to essential workers who may find it difficult to buy property in the area where they work. 48 Both cases from Monk 2010

Malaysia: Achieving a System of Competitive Cities 147 associated (positively) with transitions to unemployment and (negatively) with transitions to employment, especially among men. Ethnic diversity was negatively associated with job loss among employed women, but also for homemaking women and their chances of finding employment.

4.4 Annex 4 References

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). 2011. “Policy Planning Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing”. DCLG, London.

Feng, X., Flowerdew, R. and Feng, Z. 2013. “Does neighbourhood influence ethnic inequalities in economic activity? Find- ings from the ONS Longitudinal Study”. Journal of Economic Geography pp. 1–26.

Government of the United Kingdom (GoUK), c.1990. “Town and Country Planning Act. Website” Available at: http://www. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/106. (Accessed 6 June, 2014).

Lawder, R., Walsh, D., Kearns, A. and Livingston, M. 2014. “Healthy Mixing? Investigating the Associations between Neigh- bourhood Housing Tenure Mix and Health Outcomes for Urban Residents”. Urban Studies. 51(2) 264–283, February 2014.

Monk, S. 2010. “England: Affordable Housing Through the Planning System: The Role of Section 106”. In Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective: Affordable Housing, Social Inclusion and Land Value Recapture. N. Calavita and A. Mal- lach, editors. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.

148 Annexes

Malaysia’s cities are dynamic centers of innovation and have much potential to play an increasingly important role as drivers of economic growth for the country. Yet, cities can grow in different ways that will affect their competitiveness and livability, requiring policies that create opportunities, foster productivity, minimize environmental degradation and ensure social equity. This study focuses on understanding three key aspects of city competitiveness: economic growth, urban governance, and social inclusion, through extensive analysis and field work in six urban centers of Malaysia. Based on the analysis, the study lays out a set of policy recommendations that aim to address existing challenges and create opportunities for achieving a system of competitive cities.