|| Quality of life encompasses the fulfilment
of all human needs such as a satisfactory standard of material life,
health, education, security, the satisfaction of living in a clean
environment as well as the enjoyment of the aesthetic and the spiritual.
In short, it relates to the general well being of the populace. For
governments, including a city government like CHKL, the responsibility
in bringing about a high quality of life is in ensuring that, inter
alia, the necessary infrastructure of utilities and amenities, the
institutions of social organisation and governance that permits an
acceptable level of individual expression and choice, are in place.
||For the individual, a prerequisite
of a good quality of life is an adequate income, sufficient to permit
access to the facilities that the City can provide. These initiatives
include programmes to eradicate poverty.
|| To achieve a world-class status, it
is incumbent on Kuala Lumpur to provide a high quality of life for
its population, both in terms of the facilities that the City can
offer and in the creation of a framework within which all residents
can have equitable access to its facilities and free from poverty.
Photo 5.1: ... the satisfaction of living in a clean environment
as well as the enjoyment of the aesthetic and the piritual.
situation and issue
|| The average monthly household income
for Kuala Lumpur has increased from RM3,371 in 1995 to RM4,105 in
1999. Compared with the national average of RM2,472 in 1999, Kuala
Lumpurs average household income is higher by 66.0 percent.
|| The average annual growth rate of
household income for Kuala Lumpur for the period 1995 - 1999 was 5.0
percent which is slightly lower than the national average of 5.2 percent
(refer Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Average Monthly Household Income, 1995 - 1999
||In terms of indirect income indicators
such as car and motorcycle ownership, Table 5.2 shows that Kuala Lumpur
has 985.7 cars and motorcycles per 1,000 population in 2000 compared
to 421.9 per 1,000 population for Malaysia as a whole. This indicates
that the ownership rate of motor vehicles in Kuala Lumpur is twice
that of the national average (refer Table 5.2).
||In terms of telephone lines, although
the figures indicate a reduction in the number of telephone lines
per 1000 population from 1995 to 1997, the actual usage of telephones
in Kuala Lumpur has increased, in the form of mobile telephones.
Table 5.2: Indirect Income Indicators, 1995 - 2000
||Figure 5.1 indicates the comparison
between Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia in terms of household income distribution.
The relative affluence of the residents of Kuala Lumpur is evidenced
by the fact that 23.5 percent of Kuala Lumpur households earned more
than RM5,000 per month compared to 9.8 percent for Malaysia as a whole.
However, 8.1 percent of households in the City earned less than RM1,000,
which would place them in a category that is unable to afford even
a low cost house.
Figure 5.1: Distribution of Monthly Gross Household Income,
|| A sizeable proportion of the
population falls into the low income group.
||The poverty level in Kuala Lumpur has
increased from 0.5 percent in 1995 to 2.3 percent in 1999, although
this is still low compared to national average of 7.5 percent (refer
||In addition, the poverty level does
not take into consideration the higher costs of living in the City.
The national poverty line figure for a household income of RM510 (at
1997 prices) should be adjusted to the more realistic figure of RM750
for Kuala Lumpur. At this adjusted division line, the incidence of
poverty in Kuala Lumpur does not differ greatly from the national
average of around 7.5 percent.
Figure 5.2: Incidence of Poverty 1995 - 1999
|| Increase in the number of urban
||The Quality of Life Survey 1998 measured
the satisfaction level of Kuala Lumpurs residents with respect
to a number of specific facilities and services. More than 40 percent
of Kuala Lumpur residents faced difficulty in getting to their work
place on time owing to traffic congestion.
|| Around 20 percent of residents were
not satisfied with the provision of various public services and community
facilities in their areas. There was generally a high level of dissatisfaction
with respect to the road maintenance, bus services, street cleaning
services and garbage disposal.
||There was widespread concern among
the public with the level of pollution of rivers, noise, air and destruction
of forests. There were concern regarding safety and security as well
as vandalism in some areas of the City. A more recent perception survey
carried out by the Economic Planning Unit confirmed the above findings.
It further revealed
a high level of dissatisfaction in respect of accessibility to cultural
and recreational facilities and the low level of social interaction
and integration in the City.
|| Despite the dissatisfaction with certain
aspects of life in the City expressed in the survey, the majority
of people in Kuala Lumpur, irrespective of income or skill level,
stated their preference to live in Kuala Lumpur rather than any where
else. This indicates a sense of identity and pride in their City.
All respondents agreed that they have achieved
some degree of upward mobility in all aspects of their lives - socially,
economically and in terms of job security.
|| Dissatisfaction with certain
infrastructure, utilities, services, community and cultural facilities.
|| In line with the vision of A World-Class
City, the objectives related to income and quality of life are to:
eradicate poverty and raise the overall income level especially
those of the low income group;
provide opportunities and facilities for residents to attain
economic and social progress; and
provide a clean, pleasant and safe living environment and access
to high quality community and cultural facilities as well as public
services that are supported by efficient infrastructure.
||Household income includes both earned
and unearned income. Unearned income includes rental income
(or imputed rental income of owneroccupied houses) and capital gain
from property ownership. This is an important factor in the improvement
of income and net worth of low income households. As property values
increase with the growth of the economy and of the City, the income
and net worth of property owning low income households increase.
|| Home ownership shall be the main aim
of the Citys low cost housing programmes so that owner-occupiers
can enjoy capital gains from their properties. Owners of low cost
housing should be permitted to mortgage or sell their properties to
realise the capital gains if they so desire. This will enable those
in the lower income group to raise funds to finance productive investments
in education, business or acquisition of better properties.
||In spite of the initiatives undertaken
by the CHKL to create opportunities to enhance income and to provide
housing, health and educational services, there are still poor groups
existing in the City.
||CHKL shall implement measures
to increase the unearned income component of the
net worth of low income households.
||CHKL shall put more efforts
to eradicate poverty including the cooperation with the relevant
Photo 5.2: Home ownership shall be the main aim of the Citys
low cost housing programmes so that owner-occupiers can enjoy capital
gains from their properties.
|| Some parts of the City, especially
the Malay Reservation Areas, traditional kampungs, new villages and
dilapidated areas, have low property values even though they are strategically
located. Measures shall be taken to realise the full potential of
||CHKL shall facilitate the
development of the Malay Reservation Areas, traditional kampungs,
new villages and dilapidated areas.
||Development of the Malay Reservation
Areas, traditional kampungs and new villages is discussed in Chapter
16.0: Special Areas.
||To further assist the low income group
and urban poor, CHKL shall provide financial, organisational and expert
assistance through its social programmes to raise the income and improve
the quality of life. Programmes to support and develop business initiatives
for this group shall be encouraged.
||CHKL shall promote and expand
social programmes for low income communities and the urban poor.
Photo 5.3 : ... social programmes for low income communities
and the urban poor.
components of quality of life
of public services
||Good access to high quality public,
social and cultural facilities will contribute a great deal to the
improvement of the quality of life of the Citys residents. CHKL
can provide good governance by recruiting the participation of residents
in the improvement of their living environment.
||CHKL shall, in coordination
with the relevant authorities and agencies and with the involvement
of the public, ensures the provision of high quality public
Photo 5.4: ... the provision of high quality public services.
of the local environment
|| There is a reservoir of support from
Kuala Lumpur residents as suggested by their expressed pride in and
sense of belonging to their City. To capitalise on this and to enhance
the living environment, a self-managed community concept
could be introduced where the residential communities themselves manage
and improve their own areas with CHKL providing support in terms of
training, materials and expertise.
||CHKL shall adopt the self-managed
community concept and promote its
implementation in selected residential areas.
Photo 5.5: ... a self-managed community... manage
their own areas...