Thursday, March 29, 2018

數據引領的參與式民主



對這個課題,我已有更深化的想法和行動。本週專欄我寫的,可以說是我個人標誌性(landmark)的思考。請多多指教!
原標題:數據引領的參與式民主

地方数据优化社区建设

谁设计我们的城市?有没有人曾想过,为何地方的设施和建筑如此规划?然而,在计划被拍板执行前,当局有没咨询居民的心声和想法?对于身居的社区环境,到底我们拥有多少说话权和影响力去改变现况?在提出城市发展的看法前,到底我们有多瞭解自己的社区,而我们的意见又是否客观及符合事实?
这是一个真实的挑战,因为在我国社会一般是由上而下运作的。身为政策研究员,我常在获取地方级別数据之际碰到困难与挑战。
这无关乎我花了多少功夫和时间,很多时候就连我居住的城市最基本的人口统计数据也缺乏,甭提更小单位的社区资料。而我有兴趣知道的地方人文社会指標(social indicators)数据更是凤毛麟角。这是一个真实的挑战,因为在我国社会一般是由上而下运作的。身为政策研究员,我常在获取地方级別数据之际碰到困难与挑战。
其实很多官方发佈的数据通常只匯总合计到国与州的级別,地方分类的数据一般民眾不得而知。事实上,政府的相关单位对城市地区的人文社会数据收集也相当有限。
掌握问题基本认知
然而,若要社区成员在知情下作集体决策,那么准確的地方资料和数据就不可或缺。没有类似的资讯引领,居民又如何知道目前问题的背景和大小程度局限?
打个比方,在召开社区市民大会探討非法垃圾处理问题之前,所有参与者应要有资料列出非法垃圾场的数目和准確位置。同时,他们也该清楚社区存放的垃圾大箱桶的数目、位置和清理频率。一旦居民们都掌握了这些基本资料,那么他们將更能提出洞见確认导因,最后找出合理的解决方案。
上个月在吉隆坡举办的第九届世界城市论坛,我出席了一场由印尼「吾城基金会」(Kota Kita Foundation)主导的技术工作坊。该工作坊导师举了不少民眾参与式的城市规划与发展范例,说明了居民们有知情权及被赋权参与社区决策后的影响力。
亲身体验社区研究
我在场学习和体认到三个技巧的重要性,即(一)蒐集社区数据,尤其是当该资料没出现在官方记录;(二)呈现数据分析与传达视觉资讯给普通百姓以便他们能更清楚掌握社区议题;(三)举办与主持咨询会並引导討论达至协作方案解决问题。
诚然知识可解放和赋权社区居民作出更明智的决定。一些外来的组织和专家或许真诚欲协助当地人,但要提出合理又能符合当地文化的建议或方案前,他们须走入社区亲身体验並与当地人接触交流。信任是社区最重要的人脉「货幣」。
我学到的是,若要当地人开敞心怀提供更多资讯协助地方研究,那么与他们打好人脉关係就不容忽视了。
一般情况,若有当地的一些熟悉又受尊重的面孔或领袖带领下介绍社区和居民会是上策。一旦关係確立了,要贏取当地人的信任就事半功倍。届时有些热心的居民甚至还会主动献慇勤协助研究,他们也许出自于好奇心或对该研究深感兴趣,只因这关乎他们的社区。
参与式民主的过程之所以美好,因为它能塑造社区对特定课题的集体共识。可是,这过程有时需要专人透过清楚易懂的数据分析和视觉呈报,解释这些课题给民眾。
问题是,一些专家或许低估了当地人对地方规划的瞭解能力,不经意地强加了自己的意见和价值观给该社区。这带来反效果不难理解,居民们会觉得自己被外人指点和负面批判,反而加深了他们的抗拒和反感。
所以,倘若我们要当地人接纳一些点子,或许当个协调人会更有效地帮助他们去探索、討论乃至延伸和接受新点子。最终社区若能自决寻找最能认同的方案,对当地人来说应该是最好不过的事了。
邀请与召集有关联及影响力的利益涉及者和地方官员出席会议,本身就是一个棘手的过程。倘若成功,这將可为社区带来积极正面的改变。主持人需引导確保整体討论能专注不离题,同时需准备適当问题拋给出席者,以確保在座每一位的看法有被聆听。
较有经验的主持人会明白,较小的分组討论能更能鼓舞出席者开口,同时也会发现若有大人物出席会议,或多或少会影响出席者畅所欲言的意愿。
我相信,民眾积极参与集体决策是社区活跃的表现,更是地方民主的基石。居民协会或非政府组织可成为社区成员之间协调和组织的平臺。
然而,截至2017年6月社团註册局所登记的62,678活跃组织当中,到底有多少个类似「吾城基金会」模式,以数据掛帅的民眾参与式组织?除了恢復地方政府选举,我呼吁地方当局能释放更多的地方资讯,同时投入资金和技术资源以赋权草根组织共同寻找地方解决方案。
数据「群眾外包」
幸运的是,我国的网络覆盖率相当高,尤其是市区的流动网络。这足以支持使用手机应用程式和网站进行数据「群眾外包」(data crowdsourcing)。事实上,某些政府单位已顺应趋势通过手机应用程式和地理信息系统(GIS),架设了数据共享以及公眾投报的平臺,例如檳城的Better Penang应用程式和PeGIS。
可惜的是,尤其是前者,迄今仍没完整的数据系统开放给公眾下载读取,进而作资料分析。我期望其他政府单位亦开发方便使用且开放式的应用程式,供草根组织进行地方研究来解决问题与建设社区。
最后,我支持「吾城基金会」的愿景,即一个理想城市应由知情与被赋权的市民建设和共享。若有积极活跃的社区,集体决策不仅能改善市民的生活素质,同时也加强居民的归属感与守望相助精神。再说身为公民,我们绝对有权要求具有包容性、透明度以及社会公正的良好施政治理。
刊登于《東方日報》東方文薈版2018年3月24日

Monday, March 12, 2018

Evidence-based participatory democracy in building our own cities


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.

***
The edited version is published here at The Malaysian Insight, Voices, March 11, 2018.