malaysia quality of life

47
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm TRP 513: SOCIAL ASPECT OF PLANNING Quality of Life By; Ai'da Fazihrah Nazri 2007275618

Upload: aieyda-nazri

Post on 12-Nov-2014

3.686 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Malaysia Quality of Life

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz

TRP 513: SOCIAL ASPECT OF PLANNING

Quality of Life

By;

Ai'da Fazihrah Nazri2007275618

Page 2: Malaysia Quality of Life

1

Quality of Life

1.0 Introduction

Since the 1970s, there have been many attempts to measure how environment

and growth affect the health and well being of people or what is generally

referred to as QoL (QoL). QoL is a multifaceted concept that embraces not

only the material aspects of life such as level of living, availability of physical

and social infrastructural facilities but also the less tangible aspects of life

such as good health and opportunities for recreation and play. Unlike

standard of living, QoL is not a tangible thing, and cannot be measured

directly.

1.1 Definition of Quality of Life

According to Dr Dasimah Omar, more than 100 definitions of QoL have

been noted in the different disciplines. Some use QoL interchangeably

with other concepts such as subjective well-being, happiness, life

satisfaction and the good life. Although diverse strands of research have

been investigated individually, they have not been successful in

providing us with a holistic understanding of QoL and how to improve it.

In international comparisons, a major challenge is to cope with the

diversity of societies arising from different economic development and

the nature of the societies. For instance, the comparison of large

populous societies, dominated by agriculture and rural population with

those of small but highly urbanized societies would need to be

considered carefully.

Page 3: Malaysia Quality of Life

2

Quality of Life

Cultural and religious factors can influence the measure of QoL which is

affected by different characteristics of the respondents giving their

assessment – their education, sex, age, life stage, social status and

experiences. People defining QoL would vary accordingly to where they

live and work. The diversity of these factors points to a multi-

dimensional approach to understanding the concept of QoL. However,

within a context, that is, a given time, place and society, some

agreements can usually be reached on what would constitute QoL. In

other words, people’s needs and the fulfillment of their aspirations and

needs can be defined in a relatively precise manner within a specific

cultural context. There are sufficient elements of QoL held in common

by members of a society for the concept of QoL to be meaningful.

While there is no certainty as to what QoL means, QoL had been define

as the degree of well-being, satisfaction and standard of living. It is also

believed that the quality of a person’s life is directly related to the

person’s capability. A capability is defined as the ability or potential to

do or be something or more technically to achieve a certain level of

functioning such as health and education.

1.2 Approaches to Determining Quality of Life

Page 4: Malaysia Quality of Life

3

Quality of Life

The notion of measuring QoL could include the measurement of

practically anything of interest to anybody. Three major philosophical

approaches to determining QoL may be identified.

1. To describe characteristics of the good life that is dictated by

normative ideals based on religious, philosophical, or other

system. In this approach, we might, for instance, believe that

the good life must include helping others because this is

guided by our religious principles.

2. To defining QoL is based on the satisfaction of preferences.

The assumption in this approach is that people will select

those things that will most enhance their QoL within the

constraints of their resources. This approach to utility or the

good life based on people’s choices is very much influenced by

economic thinking.

3. To defining QoL is in terms of the experience of individuals. If

a person experiences his or her life as good and desirable, it is

assumed to be so. In this approach, factors such as feelings of

joy, pleasure, life satisfaction, happiness and contentment are

important. This approach to defining the QoL is associated

mainly with a subjective well-being perspective used in

psychological or behavioral sciences.

1.3 Concept of Quality of Life

Page 5: Malaysia Quality of Life

4

Quality of Life

The concept of QoL entails changes by which an entire society and

social system move away from a condition of life widely perceived as

unsatisfactory towards a situation of life generally regarded as better.

As such, the QoL encompasses not only economic development but also

other aspects such as social, psychological, cultural, and political and

the environment. (Dr Dasimah Omar)

The Malaysian QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements,

a healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge, and a

standard of living which surpasses the fulfillment of basic needs of

individuals and their psychological needs, to achieve a level of social

well-being compatible with the nation’s aspirations (EPU, Malaysian

QOL 1999).

2.0 Measuring Quality of Life

The use of indicators to guide decision-making can be traced to some 50 years

ago. Some of the indicators that have been popularly used include Economic

Page 6: Malaysia Quality of Life

5

Quality of Life

Indicators to track the performance of the economy and Social Indicators to

measure a whole host of social conditions and progress. Economic indicators

focus on material provision and rely heavily on the national income

accounts. Social indicators have also been developed to measure social

conditions. These include both objective and subjective indicators.

Objective social indicators look more broadly at the degree of

fulfillment of basic needs in a society while subjective social indicators

are concerned with how the members of a society perceive their own

QoL.

2.1 Physical Quality of Life Index

The Physical QoL Index (PQLI) is an attempt to measure the QoL or

well being of a country. The value is the average of three statistics

which are:

Basic literacy rate;

Infant mortality; and

Life expectancy at age one

This statistic values is all equally weighted on a 0 to 100 scale. It was

developed for the Overseas Development Council in the mid-1970s by

Morris David Morris, as a measures created due to dissatisfactions

with the use of GNP as an indicator of development. PQLI might be

regarded as an improvement but shares the general problems of

measuring QoL in a quantitative way. It has also been criticized

Page 7: Malaysia Quality of Life

6

Quality of Life

because there is considerable overlap between infant mortality

and life expectancy.

2.1.1Steps to Calculate Physical Quality of Life

1) Find percentage of the population that is literate

(literacy rate).

2) Find the infant mortality rate. (out of 1000 births)

INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate = (166 - infant mortality) × 0.625

3) Find the Life Expectancy.

INDEXED Life Expectancy = (Life expectancy - 42) × 2.7

4) Physical QoL =

(Literacy Rate + INDEXED Infant Mortality Rate + INDEXED Life Expectancy)

3

2.2 Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)

Another method of measuring differences in QoL is as a difference in

the "standard of living", according to the technical definition of that

term. For example, people in rural areas and small towns are generally

Page 8: Malaysia Quality of Life

7

Quality of Life

reluctant to move to cities, even if it would mean a substantial increase

in their standard of living. Thus the QoL of living in a rural area is of

enough value to offset a higher standard of living. Similarly, people

must be paid more to accept jobs that would lower their QoL. Night

jobs or ones with extensive travel all pay more, and the difference in

salaries can also give a measure of the value of QoL.

There is a growing field of research concerned with developing,

evaluating and applying QoL measures within health related research

(e.g. within randomized controlled trials), especially Health Services

Research. Many of these focus on the measurement of health related

QoL (HRQoL), rather than a more global conceptualization of QoL. They

also focus on measuring HRQoL from the perspective of the patient and

thus take the form of self completed questionnaires. The International

Society for QoL was founded in response to this research and is a useful

source of information on this topic.

2.3 Using free and Public Domain Data

Gene Shackman and Ya-Lin Liu are with the Global Social Change

Research Project (GSCRP), and Xun Wang is a member of the Faculty in

the Sociology Department at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. Drs

Shackman, Liu and Wang have authored numerous reports for the

GSCRP describing global social, demographic, political and economic

Page 9: Malaysia Quality of Life

8

Quality of Life

change. Many indicators are used to measure national QoL and human

development. These can be divided into single indicators and

component sets. Some emphasize 'objective' and some 'subjective'

measures. They review these approaches and describe public domain

and free data that can be used to measure QoL.

A worthy goal of any government is to improve the QoL of its citizens.

The government will know whether the QoL has improved or what the

QoL is using the one common approach is to use QoL indicators, usually

including measures of at least some of these dimensions: economic well

being, health, literacy, environmental quality, freedom, social

participation and self- perceived well being or satisfaction (André and

Bitondo, 2001).

QoL indicators allow governments to evaluate how well they are doing

compared with, for example, their development goals or the QoL in

other countries. The indicators may also be used by outside observers

or researchers to evaluate countries performance. The comparative

international approach to measuring QoL has been reviewed by Drs

Shackman, Liu and Wang. Some indicators are 'objective' or countable,

such as GDP per capita, infant mortality rate, and literacy rate.

Alternative indicators focus more on individual perceptions of well

being or satisfaction. Some QoL approaches use mainly objective

indicators, while others focus more on the subjective side.

2.3.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches

Page 10: Malaysia Quality of Life

9

Quality of Life

According to Sharpe and Smith (2005), the best known

composite QoL scale is the United Nations Development

Program's Human Development Index, HDI (UNDP, 2004).

This index is a single value measuring health and longevity,

knowledge (literacy and school enrollment) and standards

of living (GDP per capita). Countries are rated on how well

they are doing on each component compared to the range

of possible values for that component.

The HDI value averages the ratings of the three

components. To calculate an individual country's

comparative rating, the UNDP sets minimum and maximum

values for the components. However, the minima and

maxima and the country ratings themselves can vary

greatly from year to year, even if conditions do not change

much. In addition, the HDI is a comparative rating, so that a

country's HDI score depends on the achievements (or

failures) of other countries. Thus, the score cannot be used

to chart the progress from year to year of any one country,

compared only to its own previous achievements.

Other international composite scales are Prescott-Allen's

(2001) Index of the Wellbeing of Nations and Estes' (1997)

Index of Social Progress. All these scales correlate with

Page 11: Malaysia Quality of Life

10

Quality of Life

each other at a level of 0.89 or above and so seem to be

measuring similar qualities (Shackman, Liu and Wang,

2005).

A composite scale is useful as an overall indicator.

However, a single composite may sometimes be

problematic, as different scales use different indicators or

give different weights to indicators, and the construction of

the composite scale may not always be clearly explained.

Single scales may oversimplify the concept and do not

present information about its components (André and

Bitando, 2001). Finally, many QoL scales also correlate

fairly highly with income per capita and thus may not add

much useful information to this simpler economic indicator.

Thus, a set of key indicators may also be useful, because

they cover a range of topics and avoid the need for

combining or weighting individual components. Several of

the organizations measuring QoL described above (e.g.,

Estes, 1997; UNDP, 2004) also use sets of indicators. In

fact, this is the primary approach of the UNDP. The sets

used by the UNDP and Estes include measures of health,

education, economic well being, environment and

technology, and tend to focus on 'objective' measures. The

Page 12: Malaysia Quality of Life

11

Quality of Life

indicators are aggregate level measures, using the country

as the unit of analysis.

2.3.2 Alternatives

Alternatives to these major approaches include attempting to

measure the non-economic aspects of the QoL; well being as a

hierarchy of needs; and 'Gross National Happiness' (GPI Atlantic,

undated). This last approach "links the economy with social and

environmental variables to create a more comprehensive and

accurate measurement tool" (GPI Atlantic, undated).

Researchers have also tried to measure the more 'subjective'

aspects of QoL, developed subjective QoL scales, and studied the

relationship between subjective and objective aspects.

Subjective QoL has been variously defined, for example:

This dimension covers perceptions, evaluations and

appreciation of life and living conditions by the individual

citizens. Examples are measures of satisfaction or happiness.

(Noll, 2005)

The outcome of the gap between people's goals and perceived

resources, in the context of their environment, culture, values,

and experiences. (Camfield, 2005)

Although the subjective well being does not correlate well with

'objective' measures, a recently developed scale of life

Page 13: Malaysia Quality of Life

12

Quality of Life

satisfaction, the QoL scale (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005)

correlates highly (.77 and above) with the 'objective' measures of

GDP per capita, infant mortality rate and literacy. On the other

hand, another satisfaction with life scale correlates 0.4 to 0.5

with the major scales, but 0.74 with the Economist Intelligence

Unit's (2005) scale. Thus, as Veenhoven (2004) indicates, it may

be that 'subjective well being' is not a unitary concept, but rather

requires different indicators for different aspects.

Subjective QoL scales are also constructed somewhat differently

than are the 'objective' scales. These scales are, as the label

suggests, from the individual's own point of view.

3.0 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index

The Economist Intelligence Unit has developed a new QoL index based on a

unique methodology that links the results of subjective life-satisfaction

surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries. The

index has been calculated for 111 countries for 2005. This note explains the

methodology and gives the complete country ranking.

3.1 Quality of Life Indices

It has long been accepted that material wellbeing, as measured by GDP

per person, cannot alone explain the broader QoL in a country. One

strand of the literature has tried to adjust GDP by quantifying facets

that are omitted by the GDP measure but the approach has faced

Page 14: Malaysia Quality of Life

13

Quality of Life

insurmountable difficulties in assigning monetary values to the various

factors and intangibles that comprise a wider measure of socio-

economic wellbeing.

There have been numerous attempts to construct alternative, non-

monetary indices of social and economic wellbeing by combining in a

single statistic a variety of different factors that are thought to influence

QoL. The main problem in all these measures is selection bias and

arbitrariness in the factors that are chosen to assess quality of life and,

even more seriously, in assigning weights to different indicators

(measured on a comparable and meaningful scale) to come up with a

single synthetic measure. Some researchers have invoked the UN’s

Universal Declaration of Human Rights to identify the factors that need

to be included in a QoL measure. But, even if accepted as a starting

point, that still does not point to precise indicators or how they are to be

weighted. A technocratic and unsatisfying device that is sometimes used

is to resort to “expert opinion”.

3.2 Life Satisfaction Surveys

The starting point for a methodologically improved and more

comprehensive measure of QoL is subjective life-satisfaction surveys

(surveys of life satisfaction, as opposed to surveys of the related concept

of happiness, are preferred for a number of reasons). These surveys ask

people the simple question of how satisfied they are with their lives in

general. A typical question on the four-point scale used in the

Eurobarometer studies is, “On the whole are you very satisfied, fairly

satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the life you lead?”

Page 15: Malaysia Quality of Life

14

Quality of Life

The results of the surveys have been attracting growing interest in

recent years. Despite a range of early criticisms (cultural non-

comparability and the effect of language differences across countries;

psychological factors distorting responses), tests have disproved or

mitigated most concerns. One objection is that responses to surveys do

not adequately reflect how people really feel about their life; they

allegedly report how satisfied they are expected to be. But people know

very well how satisfied they are. Responses to questions about life

satisfaction tend to be prompt; non-response rates are very low.

This simple measure of life satisfaction has been found to correlate

highly with more sophisticated tests, ratings by others who know the

individual and behavioral measures. The survey results have on the

whole proved far more reliable and informative than might be expected.

Another criticism is that life-satisfaction responses reflect the dominant

view on life, rather than actual QoL in a country.

Life satisfaction is seen as a judgment that depends on social and

culturally specific frames of reference. But this relativism is disproved

by the fact that people in different countries report similar criteria as

being important for life satisfaction, and by the fact that most

differences in life satisfaction across countries can be explained by

differences in objective circumstances. In addition, it has been found

that the responses of immigrants in a country are much closer to the

level of the local population than to responses in their motherland.

Answers to questions on satisfaction in bilingual countries do not reveal

Page 16: Malaysia Quality of Life

15

Quality of Life

any linguistic bias arising from possibly differing meanings and

connotations of the words “happiness” and “satisfaction”. Self reports of

overall life satisfaction can be meaningfully compared across nations.

3.3 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index

The survey results cannot be completely taken at face value and use the

average score on life satisfaction as the indicator of quality of life for a

country because of several reasons. First, comparable results for a

sufficient number of countries tend to be out-of-date and many nations

are not covered at all. Second, the impact of measurement errors on

assessing the relationship between life-satisfaction perceptions and

objective indicators tends to cancel out across a large number of

countries. But there might still be significant errors for any given

country. So there is a bigger chance of error in assessing QoL between

countries if a single average life-satisfaction score as opposed to a multi-

component index be taken. Finally, and most important, although most

of the inter-country variation in the life-satisfaction surveys can be

explained by objective factors, there is still a significant unexplained

component which, in addition to measurement error, might be related to

specific factors that we would want to net out from an objective QoL

index.

Page 17: Malaysia Quality of Life

16

Quality of Life

Instead we use the survey results as a starting point, and a means for

deriving weights for the various determinants of QoL across countries,

in order to calculate an objective index. The average scores from

comparable life-satisfaction surveys (on a scale of one to ten) can be

assembled for 1999 or 2000 for 74 countries. These scores are then

related in a multivariate regression to various factors that have been

shown to be associated with life satisfaction in many studies. As many as

nine factors survive in the final estimated equation (all except one are

statistically significant; the weakest, gender equality, falls just below).

Together these variables explain more than 80% of the inter-country

variation in life-satisfaction scores. Using so-called Beta coefficients

from the regression to derive the weights of the various factors, the

most important were health, material wellbeing, and political stability

and security. These were followed by family relations and community

life. Next in order of importance were climate, job security, political

freedom and finally gender equality.

The values of the life-satisfaction scores that are predicted by our nine

indicators represent a country’s QoL index, or the “corrected” life-

satisfaction scores, based on objective cross-country determinants. The

coefficients in the estimated equation weight automatically the

importance of the various factors; the method also means that the

original units or measurement of the various indicators can be used.

They do not, unlike for other indices, have to rely on the potentially

distortive effect of having to transform all indicators to a common

measurement scale. We can also use the estimated equation based on

1999/2000 data to calculate index values for other years or even to

Page 18: Malaysia Quality of Life

17

Quality of Life

forecast an index, thus making it up-to-date and facilitating comparison

over time.

4.0 The Malaysia Quality of Life

The Malaysia QoL is defined as encompassing personal advancements, a

healthy lifestyle, access and freedom to pursue knowledge and a standard of

living which surpasses the fulfilment of basic needs of individuals and their

psychological needs, to achieve a level of social well-being compatible with

the nation’s aspirations.

4.1 The Malaysia Quality of Life Index (MQLI)

To measure the changes in the QoL, the Malaysian QoL Index (MQLI)

was devised. The MQLI is a composite measurement based on ten

selected areas, namely income and distribution, working life, transport

and communications, health, education, housing, environment, family

life, social participation and public safety. These areas are assumed to

be of equal importance for the well-being and the QoL of the population

and as such, were assigned equal weightage. A total of 38 indicators

were used in the computation of the Index (Refer Table 1). The

indicators were selected on the basis of their importance, how best they

Page 19: Malaysia Quality of Life

18

Quality of Life

reflect that particular area and the availability of data on a time series

basis (Refer Table 2). The indicators are aimed at providing an

aggregate measure of the QoL in order to assess the impact of

economic development on the population. In formulating the MQLI, the

data used were for the period 1980-1998, with the exception of data on

environment, which were available only from 1985. The year 1990 was

chosen as the base year as it was a relatively normal year, besides

being sufficiently recent.

Table 1 : Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index

Area Indicator

Income and Distribution

Real per Capita GNP Gini Coefficient Incidence of Poverty

Working Life

Unemployment Rate Trade Disputes Man-Days Lost Due to Industrial Actions Industrial Accident Rate

Transport and Communications

Private Motorcars and Motorcycles Commercial Vehicles Road Development Telephones Average Daily Newspaper Circulation

Health

Life Expectancy at Birth (Male) Life Expectancy at Birth (Female) Infant Mortality Rate Doctor-Population Ratio Hospital Bed-Population Ratio

Education

Pre-School Participation Rate Secondary School Participation Rate University Participation Rate Literacy Rate Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio

Housing

Average Housing Price Low-Cost Housing Unit Housing Units with Piped Water Housing Units with Electricity

Environment Air Quality Clean Rivers Forested Land

Page 20: Malaysia Quality of Life

19

Quality of Life

Family Life

Divorces Crude Birth Rate Household Size Juvenile Crimes

Social Participation

Registered Voters Membership in Selected Voluntary

Organizations

Public Safety Crimes Road Accidents

Table 2 : The Rationale for the Selection of Areas

Area Rationale

Income and Distribution

Gross income or per capita income reflects welfare or standard of living. Incomes provide the condition that allows individuals to sustain themselves and their families, while the distribution of income reflects equity and distribution of economic resources.

Working LifeWorking life is important because being employed provides a source of income that contributes to the standard of living and QoL

Transport and Communications

Transport and communications are vital factors for progress an development since they relate to the mobility of and accessibility to resources as well as opportunity for employment, education and movement of goods and services.

Health

Health, which includes physical and mental well being, enables people to work productively and participate actively in the social and economic life of the community.

Education

The education systems are the principal instruments for transmitting knowledge and culture from one generation to the next. It provides the foundation from which the technology to sustain and improve the QoL is developed and enhanced.

HousingHousing is a basic social need that is necessary for decent living, security and shelter for the family.

Environment

Environment has a direct effect on the well-being of the population. Air and water pollution and forested land are some indicator of the quality of environment.

Family Life The family unit represents the core institutions within the societal structure and its functioning

Page 21: Malaysia Quality of Life

20

Quality of Life

fulfills the social economic and psychological needs of individuals.

Social Participation

Social participations is the reflection of the people’s commitment and willingness to be involved in social, political, religious and community activities.

Public SafetyPublic safety is essential as it ensures social peace and stability

Table 3: The Index for the 10 Areas of MQLI 1980-1998

AreaYEAR/INDEX

1990 = 100

Income and Distribution1980 = 77.39

1998 = 105.82

Working Life1980 = 106.13

1998 = 118.94

Transport and

Communications

1980 = 87.36

1998 = 112.78

Health 1980 = 83.24

1998 = 109.58

Education1980 = 85.97

1998 = 117.31

Housing1980 = 90.52

1998 = 107.72

Environment1980 = n.a

1998 = 100.94

Family Life1980 = 85.46

1998 = 113.86

Social Participation1980 = 81.55

1998 = 97.98

Public Safety1980 = 78.40

1998 = 72.11

Composites Index1980 = 86.22

1998 = 105.71

Change for Base Year

(1990)

1980 = (-) 13.78

Page 22: Malaysia Quality of Life

21

Quality of Life

1998 = (+) 5.71

4.2 Malaysia Urban Quality of Life

Malaysia witnessed a fast pace of urbanization in 1990 to 2000, largely

contributed by rapid economic growth and transformation. The

population in urban areas increased at an average rate of 4.6% per

annum, about twice the national population growth rate of 2.2%. As a

result, the share in the urban population increased from 51.1% to 61.8%

during the period. The expansion of urban centres as well as the

establishment of new townships and satellite industrial towns also

contributed to this increase. Urbanization generated new economic

activities and created more employment opportunities as well as

provided greater access to modern social amenities.

4.2.1 Concept

The Malaysian Urban Quality of Life Index (MUQLI) was

constructed to measure the changes in the QoL in the urban

areas. MUQLI is a composite measure comprising 12 areas and

29 indicators for the period 1990 to 2000 (Table 4). The

indicators were selected on the basis of their importance and the

availability of data on a timeseries basis, and were assigned

equal weightage.

Page 23: Malaysia Quality of Life

22

Quality of Life

Table 4: Components of Malaysian Quality of Life Index

Area Indicator

Income and Distribution

Real per Capita GNP Gini Coefficient Incidence of Poverty

Working Life Trade Disputes Industrial Accidents

Transport and Communications

Private Motorcars and Motorcycles Public Transports Telephones

Health Infant Mortality Rate Doctor-Population Ratio

Education

Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio Primary School Average Class Size Secondary School Average Class Size

Housing Average Rental to Household Income Ratio Average Prices of Houses to Household Income

Ratio

Environment River Quality Index Solid Waste per Kapita

Family Life Divorces Household Size

Public Safety Crimes Road Accidents

Community Participation

Registered Voluntary Organizations Rukun Tetangga Members Registered Voters

Culture and Leisure

Library Membership Sports and Recreation Club

Urban Services Expenditure on Social Services Expenditure on Landscaping

4.2.2 Overview

Page 24: Malaysia Quality of Life

23

Quality of Life

MUQLI is calculated on the basis of the urban QoL indices of four

selected cities, namely, Ipoh, Johor Bahru, Kuala Lumpur and

Kuching. The four cities accounted for about 30%of the total

urban population of Malaysia in 2000 (Refer Table 5). The

MUQLI increased by 5.8 points to 105.8 points in 2000,

indicating an improvement in the QoL in urban areas (Table 6).

Table 5: Profile of Selected Urban Areas

State StatusPopulation

(2000 census)Land Area

Main Economic Activities

Ipoh Capital of Perak

451,558 peoples

136.9 sq.km

Trade, Commercial and Industrial activities

Kuantan Capital of Pahang

344,706 peoples

324 sq.km Trade and commercial activities and port services

Kota Kinabalu

Capital of Sabah

305,382 people 344 sq.km Trade and Commercial activities and tourism

Kuala Lumpur

Capital of Malaysia

1,297,526 243 sq.km Trade and Commercial activities, business services, tourism and education

Johor Bharu

Capital of Johor

385,213 185 sq.km Trade, Commercial and Industrial activities and tourism

Kuching Capital of Sarawak

163,846 369 sq. km

Trade, Commercial activities and tourism

Table 6 : MUQLI: Composite Index and Indices by Area, 1990-2000

Page 25: Malaysia Quality of Life

24

Quality of Life

The QoL in urban areas during the period 1990 to 2000

witnessed an improvement as reflected by the upward trend of

the MUQLI. This was mainly due to the significant improvements

in family life, income and distribution, culture and leisure as well

as education. Other areas of QoL that witnessed improvements

were transport and communications health, working life,

housing, urban services and community participation, while the

quality of environment and the state of public safety declined.

The environment index deteriorated as a result of the decline in

the river quality index and the increase in per capita solid waste

collection. The decline in the state of public safety was due to the

rise in crime rates and the number of road accidents. However,

all the four cities recorded an overall improvement in the QoL.

4.3 Malaysia Quality of Life in Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010

Page 26: Malaysia Quality of Life

25

Quality of Life

The Malaysian QoL, as measured by the MQLI, improved during the

1994-2004 period, increasingly by 10.9 points except for public safety

and the environment, all components of the MQLI made good progress.

The improvement in QoL is also reflected in the achievement of all the

Millennium Development Goals ahead of the target of 2015, expect for

HIV/AIDS.

The Millennium Development Goals, as agreed at the United Nations

General Assembly are to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;

achieve universal primary education; promote gender quality and

empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health;

combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other disease; ensure environmental

sustainability and develop a global partnership by 2015.

Infant and child mortality rates showed a significant decline due to

improvements in the national healthcare system, better education and

greater reproductive health services. Life expectancy increased for

both male and female.

Access to adequate, affordable and quality housing improved, as

indicated by the increase in the household to house ratio from 1:1.14 in

1991 to 1:1.18 in 2005. The number of houses rose from 4.1 million in

1991 to 6.4 million in 2005.

National water supply coverage increased from 80% of the total

population in 1990 to 95% in 2005. Urban coverage remained high

while rural coverage rose significantly from 67% in 1990 to 92% in

2005. Measures were undertaken to reduce the proportion on non-

Page 27: Malaysia Quality of Life

26

Quality of Life

revenue water from 43% in 1990to 38% in 20%. However, there is room

to improve water delivery efficiency further.

National electricity coverage expanded from 80% in 1990 to 93% in

2005. Rural electricity coverage rose significantly from 67% in 1990 to

92% in 2005. Although the situation has improved greatly especially for

Sabah and Sarawak, coverage in these states needs to be improving

further. As for telecommunications, market liberalisation of the industry

since the 1990s has led to more competitive pricing and consumer

choice, which in turn increased the cellular phone penetration

significantly from 0.7% per 100 populations in 1990 to 74.1 in 2005.

To ease traffic congestion, a multi-modal public transport systems was

implemented in the Klang Valley, which included the construction of the

light rail transit (LRT) system, rail commuter service, monorail and

feeder bus system. The highway and road network also grew from

53,985 kilometres in 1990 to 77,673 kilometres in 2005, which

facilitated the establishment of new growth areas as well as reduced

travel time and cost. To handle the increase in air passenger traffic,

upgrading of airport was undertaken and new airports were built, the

largest being the KL International Airport (KLIA) as the main gateway

to the country. In addition, access by air to remote areas was improved.

The National Environment Policy provided as impetus to efforts to

address environmental issue in an integrated manner. Among others,

these efforts resulted in air quality remaining at good to moderate

levels in most part of the country; Malaysia continues to take measures

to protect its rich natural heritage. Over half of the country’s land area

Page 28: Malaysia Quality of Life

27

Quality of Life

remains forested and there is a comprehensive network of national and

Marine Park, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries as well as permanent

forest reserves in place.

5.0 Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the

Essence City

The creation of a new Federal Government Administrative Centre at Putrajaya

marks a new chapter in the development history of modern Malaysia. The

development of this new administrative centre was prompted by the need to

balance and disperse development to areas outside of Klang Valley. It is a

decision motivated by the government’s desire to improve the urban

environment and quality of life, and to ease the pressure on the infrastructure

in Kuala Lumpur and the Klang Valley in general.

In city planning terms, it provides a golden opportunity and a challenge to

embark on something new and innovative representing Malaysian values and

culture. Putrajaya the new Federal Government Administrative Centre, is to

be equipped with the latest facilities and technologies for improved

effectiveness and productivity, as well as, amenities that shall contribute to

quality living and working environment. But the challenge also lies in

fostering the spirit, sense of purpose and identity for the new city.

6.0 Planning Background

On 2nd June 1993 the Federal Government decided on an area in

Perang Besar, Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan to be the site for the new

Federal Government Administrative Centre. Thereafter, the planning

process for Putrajaya went into full swing with the setting up of

Page 29: Malaysia Quality of Life

28

Quality of Life

Putrajaya Development Committee and the Putrajaya Development

Unit within the Prime Minister’s Department.

In 1994, five alternative concept schemes by local consultants and a

group of government agencies led by the Federal Department of Town

and Country Planning and the Public Works Department were

presented to the Cabinet. Of the five schemes, the Government

selected the “Garden City” concept as the guiding theme for the new

city. A master plan was subsequently developed based on this theme.

The Putrajaya Master Plan was given Government approval in February

1995. It later underwent a review upon which a final approval was

obtained in April 1997. To implement the plan, Perbadanan Putrajaya

was established 1996 with the main role of developing, managing and

administration of the city area. Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd, a

government-owned company, was also formed to act as the master

developer responsible for construction of government offices,

commercial areas, residential premises and the main infrastructure.

7.0 Putrajaya Master Plan

The Putrajaya Master Plan covers an area of approximately 4,600

hectares. The Garden City concept is clearly evident in the amount of

land area dedicated to open space within the city, which is 1,721

Page 30: Malaysia Quality of Life

29

Quality of Life

hectares (37.6 %). In brief, the major features of the Master Plan are as

follows:

A large proportion of the city area is designated as green open

space;

A large water body (man-made lake) and wetlands was formed

by utilizing the small rivers which run through the area;

The lake created a 38 kilometers long waterfront area;

The city is divided into 20 precincts with the ‘core employment

and commercial precincts’ (Core Area) located on an island

within the man-made lake;

‘Peripheral’ (residential) precincts planned based on the

neighbourhood planning concept to accommodate a mix of

residential, local level commercial, and public amenities areas;

A 4.2 km long boulevard forms the central spine of the city;

Projected residential population of 330,000; with 67,000 housing

units;

The Master Plan is supplemented with urban design guidelines,

policy documents, and

Local plans prepared to meet statutory requirements.

8.0 Creating the Essence of the City

The main function of town planning as argued by Foley is to provide a

good physical environment, essential for the promotion of a healthy

and civilized life. Given that improvement in quality of life is the

Page 31: Malaysia Quality of Life

30

Quality of Life

Government’s underlying aim for developing Putrajaya, the city

planners have been quick to take the cue by making “quality urban

living” as the basic objective for planning Putrajaya. This explains the

adoption of the Garden City concept for guiding its physical

development. The intention is not only to create a city where social

activities take place within an ideal landscape where nature permeates

into all aspects of life, but also one which would display a combination

of the following features:

Accessibility to facilities, services and place of work

Neighbourliness and community atmosphere

Close to nature

Amenities for recreation

Dynamic and lively

A city with identity and character

Through careful planning – supported by good urban management and

governance – these concepts are translated physically, and in the

process create the essence of the city that is Putrajaya.

8.1.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood

Living

Quality urban living involves more than just providing places of

work and residence. If we cast our views on other cities with

reputation for high urban quality of life, essential ingredients

Page 32: Malaysia Quality of Life

31

Quality of Life

would include facilities and amenities for individual fulfilment

and community life, i.e. for cultural, recreation, social interaction

and other activities. In Putrajaya, the planners have been ever

mindful of the fact that we are not just building an administrative

centre. But rather, we are also trying to build a new community.

Meeting the various socio-cultural needs of the inhabitants is

therefore a top priority. Foremost in priority is of course

adequate and suitable housing. A broad mix of residential

development type is planned for the city including luxury

bungalows, semi-D and terrace-type housing, apartments and

affordable housing for the lower income group.

This is supported by a variety of urban amenities such as health,

libraries, sports and recreational. Within residential

neighbourhoods, community facilities such as schools,

convenience shops, multi-purpose halls, surau and local parks are

provided. In line with the Garden City theme, a large proportion

of the city area is designated as parks and open space ranging

from metropolitan parks to local neighbourhood playgrounds.

Reinforcing these facilities are urban features such as landmarks,

squares, plazas and bridges that form part of the cityscape,

providing a wide range of spatial experiences that further

enhance the spatial quality of the city.

What is significant in Putrajaya is that all these amenities and

facilities are found in close proximity to the residents which is

achieved through the adoption of the neighbourhood concept in

the planning of its residential precincts. The size of the

Page 33: Malaysia Quality of Life

32

Quality of Life

neighbourhood is such that a majority of the population is within

a five-minute walking distance of its centre (1/4 mile) and where

the needs of daily life are mostly available within this area.

9.0 Sources and References

Chris Lucas 2002, Quality of Life

Dato’ Jebasingam Issace John, The Planning

of Putrajaya: Creating the Essence of

City

Dr Dasimah Omar, Quality of Life, Lecture’s

Notes of TR513, University

Technology MARA

Dr Dasimah Omar, Town and Country

Planning and Quality of Life in

Malaysia, Lecture’s Notes of TRP513,

University Technology MARA

Gene Shackman, Ya-Lin Liu and Xun Wang,

Measuring quality of life using free

and public domain data, retrieved on

November 2, 2008

Malaysia Urban Quality of Life

New Straits Times, Four Cities Record

Better Quality of Life, April 2002

Quest for a Better Quality of Life, Malaysia

Quality of Life 1999

Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of Life

Index, retrieved on October 14, 2008

Wikepedia free Encylopedia , Quality of

Life, retrieved on November 2, 2008

Wikepedia free Encylopedia, Physical

Quality of Life Index, retrieved on

November 2, 2008

Page 34: Malaysia Quality of Life

Contents

1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................1

1.1 Definition of Quality of Life.............................................................1

1.2 Approaches to Determining Quality of Life.....................................3

1.3 Concept of Quality of Life...............................................................4

2.0 Measuring Quality of Life..........................................................................5

2.1 Physical Quality of Life Index.........................................................5

2.1.1 Steps to Calculate Physical Quality of Life.........................6

2.2 Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)..........................................7

2.3 Using free and Public Domain Data................................................8

2.3.1 ‘Objectives’ Approaches....................................................9

2.3.2 Alternatives.....................................................................11

3.0 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index..........................13

3.1 Quality of Life Indices...................................................................13

3.2 Life Satisfaction Surveys..............................................................14

3.3 The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index.......................................16

4.0 The Malaysia Quality of Life....................................................................18

4.1 The Malaysia Quality of Life Index (MQLI)....................................18

4.2 Malaysia Urban Quality of Life......................................................22

4.2.1 Concept...........................................................................22

4.2.2 Overview.........................................................................24

4.3 Malaysia Quality of Life in Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010..........26

Page 35: Malaysia Quality of Life

Quality of Life

Contents

5.0 Case Study: The Planning of Putrajaya; Creating the Essence City........28

5.1 Planning Background...................................................................29

5.2 Putrajaya Master Plan..................................................................30

5.3 Creating the Essence of the City..................................................31

5.3.1 Quality Urban Living Through Neighbourhood Living......32

6.0 Sources and References.........................................................................33