The original uncut version of my TMI article text is below,
the editor has left out quite some lines I wrote, even watered down the title
(ok, i understand that this is the prerogative of an editor. I thank them for
the publication though).
I personally believe in bottom up participatory democracy as
well as the power of information and evidence, in addressing and solving local
issues. Most of all, to empower citizens and communities. I see myself setting
up similar kind of evidence-based participatory NGO in near future, but firstly
I should learn up some GIS skills.
***
Title: Evidence-based participatory democracy in building
our own cities
Who designs our cities? Sometimes we wonder, why are our
voices and views not even consulted before structures and amenities in our
surroundings are erected? As members of our local communities, how much say and
t power do we have to change the settings in our own neighbourhood?
Even before offering our views on certain developmental
issues in our city, how well do we actually know our community, and whether our
opinions are just subjective or truly have basis in evidence? This is a real
issue in Malaysia, where it is usually the case that we see a top-down
organised society.
As a policy researcher myself, I often find difficulties in
obtaining disaggregated data at local level. Many a time, I have spent no small
amount of effort searching for the most basic demographic information about my
city (not even down to neighbourhood level), but rarely did these searches
yield much demographic breakdown by many social indicators. Most officially
published data are only aggregated to national and state level, while
disaggregated data remains unavailable to the public. Moreover, government’s
data on urban communities in specific localities tends to collected in very
limited categories by the relevant agencies.
Informed and collective decision-making by community members
should be based on accurate local data and evidence. Without the latter, how
could one possibly understand the current context and scale of a problem in the
community? For example, before convening a community town hall meeting on open
illegal littering or waste management issues, all parties should be equipped
with information about the number of illegal dumpsites and their exact
locations. Also, community members should be made aware of the number of
communal waste containers installed within the neighbourhood, their locations,
and how often they are cleared. Once this basic information is known, community
members would then have a clearer sense of the context and issues that need to
be discussed. They would also be better placed to offer insights, identify the
causes and suggest reasonable solutions to the problem.
On 9 February, I attended a skills-training workshop session
conducted by the Kota Kita Foundation from Indonesia, at the 9th World Urban
Forum which was held in Kuala Lumpur. The facilitators of that workshop gave
many examples of good practices in participatory approaches in urban planning
and development, aiming at foster participation of well-informed and empowered
citizens in better decision-making at community level. Attending this workshop
made me realize the importance of (i) skills on collecting local data through a
participatory process – especially if such data is absent in official records,
(ii) skills on presenting data analyses and information visuals for lay people
to have clearer grasp of local issues, iii) skills on conducting consultative sessions
and guiding discussions for collaborative solution design.
Knowledge can liberate and empower communities to make
better informed decisions. Some NGOs and experts from outside might be sincere
in wanting to help the locals, but to offer sound advice or solutions that are
adaptable to the local culture, one has to walk into the community and engage
with the locals. Trust is the most valuable ‘currency’ for conducting community
studies. I learned that, to encourage locals to open up and offer information,
fostering local ties should never be overlooked. Usually the local leader or a
well-recognised and respected person in the community would be best to approach
first. Once these ties are established, it is easier to earn the confidence and
trust of the locals to help with data collection. Some might be even genuinely
curious and interested in the study which involves and concerns them.
The beauty of the participatory process is that it creates
collective understanding of certain issue. However, one still needs to lead and
inform the people what the issue is, via clear and easy-to-understand data
analyses and visual presentation. Some experts might underestimate the ability
of locals to understand urban planning, and too forcefully impose their own views
and values on the community. This may be counterproductive, especially if it
creates resistance and resentment from community members who feel as though
they are being negatively judged. Thus, if we would like the locals to adopt
certain ideas as their own, it might be more helpful to assume the role of a
facilitator assisting them to discover, discuss, develop and finally embrace
ideas. In the end, self-determination in finding the best solution for local
issues is the most fulfilling experience.
Inviting and gathering the most relevant and impactful local
stakeholders and authorities to a working session is a tricky process, but one
which, if successful, produces results in positive change. Facilitators would
need to guide the discussion to ensure it stays focussed throughout, and also
prepare the right questions so that the voices of each and every participant
are heard in the meeting. More experienced facilitators would realise that
smaller breakout groups are more effective in encouraging people to speak up,
whilst the presence of high-rank and powerful officer(s) in large groups may
hinder participants’ willingness to freely express their views.
I believe that active communities are the cornerstone of
local democracy, which is about self-determination and participation of people
in collective decision-making. In line with this, residential associations or
NGOs are good platforms for community members to organise and coordinate among
themselves. Out of the 62,678 active organisations registered under the
Registry of Societies Malaysia (as of June 2017), how many practise the
evidence-based participatory citizens’ solution model exemplified by Kota Kita
Foundation Indonesia? Besides the reintroduction of local government elections,
I would urge local councils to engage in greater sharing of information, as
well as committing financial and technical resources to empower grassroots
organisations to find local solutions.
Malaysia is fortunate in that internet penetration rate,
especially mobile networks in the urban areas, is high enough to support data
crowdsourcing from mobile apps and websites. Some governments have already
harnessed on this trend by setting up data-sharing and/or incident-reporting
platforms via mobile apps and Geographic Information System (GIS) portals. Some
examples of this include Better Penang app and PEGIS in Penang.
It is my hope that other governments will also consider
developing open-access and user-friendly tools, so as to enable grassroots
organisations to perform local community social studies for problem-solving and
capacity building purposes.
Finally, I share Kota Kita’s vision that a model city is
shaped and shared by informed and empowered citizens. With such proactive
communities, collective decision making can truly make a difference in
improving the quality of living, and thus foster a sense of belonging and
solidarity among the people. As citizens, they are entitled to governance that
is inclusive, transparent and socially just.
***
