About 70% of people living in low-cost housing might not understand their responsibilities and require education

graphic by MZUKRI

GIVE a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Or, in the context of this article: “…teach a man to fish and public housing would last a lifetime.”

Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng in his Budget 2020 presentation last Friday announced that the government has allocated RM100 million for the repair and refurbishment of public housing to ensure facilities are safe and in good working order.

This was a welcomed move, especially since the Department of Occupational Safety and Health had revealed that while the standard operating procedure for elevator management, including at People’s Housing Project (PPR) is adequate, one of the key challenges was the owner or joint management body’s failure to appoint a competent firm to carry out maintenance, normally due to financial constraints. The other reality is the tenants blatantly refuse to pay maintenance fees.

While local authorities had tried numerous methods, approaches and campaigns to encourage owners to take responsibility and ownership of their own homes, they somehow feel that they are entitled to free services.

It is not shocking to hear the many reports of burst pipes, faulty electrical services and elevator breakdowns at such facilities.

Besides the “I am entitled” attitude, the country while developing at a fast pace, is trapped in many of the thirdworld mentality.

News of faulty elevators at low-cost housing that caused serious injuries and even deaths were common headlines.

As if it was not bad enough that the elevators were not being maintained regularly, the residents were speeding up the damages by abusing such facilities. People crammed into elevators like sardines in a can, ignoring the maximum capacity sign or the danger of mishap. Others would take their “entitlement” to the extreme. There were even those who pushed their motorcycles into the elevator and take them up to their flats.

While such stories may tickle the funny bone of residents of posh condos, such “bike takes elevator ride” is considered as a normal practice at PPRs. Elevator walls suffered defacement and lewd graffiti. Discerning parents had to cover their children’s eyes from such images all the way to the 24th floor. Not to mention the “unworldly belief” that if you pressed the button harder, the faster the elevator would move.

To make matters worse, most highrise low-cost housing does not have designated rubbish chutes or rubbish rooms on every floor and residents need to dispose of their garbage on the ground floor.

Even if they were willing to travel the many floors down, many were reluctant to stink the elevator. So, they would take the easy way out — park their rubbish on the walkways or out through the balcony or kitchen windows.

Even sofas had made the “short flight” down these housings. The attitude is “once it’s out of my door, it’s someone else’s problem, as long as the inside of my flat is spick and span”.

Day after day, the rubbish would pile up and become breeding grounds of maggots and rats. Last year, a 15-year-old boy on the ground floor was killed when an office chair was thrown out from the 21st floor of PPR Sri Pantai, Kuala Lumpur.

Malaysian Institute of Property and Facility Managers president Adzman Shah Mohd Ariffin said the allocation was a temporary solution as owners needed to be educated.

“A lot of people do not understand that they need to contribute for the place to run. About 70% of people living in low-cost housing might not understand their responsibilities and require education,” he told The Malaysian Reserve, adding that issues would spiralled if suggestions were taken lightly.

“The social implications from poorly maintained low-cost residences will cause the value of such properties to slump,” he said.

Despite the hatred of stereotyping, many people associated low-income groups with poor mentality and attitude.

But the residents of PPR Seri Alam in Sungai Besi, Kuala Lumpur who had for many years managed to keep their grounds clean with excellent landscape and throwing their garbage in the designated area, were the few who went against the general belief.

The challenge remains. If the RM100 million budget can only last for a year as stated by the Institution of Engineers Malaysia VP Dr Wang Hong Kok, how much does the government need to give for a permanent change of attitude? Maybe all the money in the world will not be enough. Money can’t buy class. So would a good attitude.

Farezza Hanum Rashid is the assistant news editor at The Malaysian Reserve.