Journal Article for your reading pleasure

Posted by YB Golong on April 08, 2005 at 07:29:36:

Neighbourhood Cohesiveness Programme: A Study in Three Different Localities in the City Hall of Kuching North, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Ahi Sarok, Nicholas Amin, Daniel Chew & Leila Sim

ABSTRACTS

Neighbourhood Cohesive Programme (NCP) was officially launched in November 2000 by the Right Honourable Chief Minister of Sarawak. Consequently eight residential areas within the jurisdiction of the City Hall of Kuching North (DBKU) were chosen by the city hall to implement the programme. The purpose of this study is to gauge the respondents knowledge and their perceptions on the programme. A purposive sampling technique was employed and 1284 respondents in the designated residential were interviewed on their knowledge and perceptions of the programme. Respondents were also asked whether they are acquainted with their neighbours living in the same neighbourhood, where do they meet their neighbours and whether they participates in activities organized in the neighbourhood. Respondents were also asked what are their responsibilities as a responsible and good neighbour. Lastly the respondents were also asked how they could contribute towards the successful realization of this programme.

INTRODUCTION
Kuching was elevated to a city status on August 1, 1988. With the official declaration of a city status, the administration of Kuching City is entrusted to two local authorities: City North Hall of Kuching North (Dewan Bandaraya Kuching Utara or in short DBKU) and Kuching City South Council (Majlis Bandaraya Kuching Selatan). Since its inception DBKU has been entrusted to implement various infrastructure and development programmes in areas under its jurisdiction.
DBKU was given the mandate to implement the Neighbourhood Cohesiveness Programme (NCP) in residential areas under its jurisdiction. In March 2000, DBKU in collaboration with the Sarawak Development Institute (SDI) conducted at workshop on the NCP. The workshop was attended by head of various government departments, community leaders, and leaders of interest groups with the view of conceptualizing the NCP and to find out ways to implement the NCP in residential areas in the city. After the workshop NCP concept was formally institutionalized. In November, 2000 the Rt. Honourable Pehin Sri (Dr.) Abdul Taib Mahmud, Chief Minister of Sarawak launched this grandiose project. Three years on the DBKU has planned to launch many more of such programmes in residential areas under its jurisdiction.
According to DBKU pamphlet on Neighbourhood Cohesive Programme, neighbourhood cohesiveness is defined as: ?the enhancement of cohesive relationship and good values amongst neighbours through collective actions and voluntary participation in activities organized in the neighbourhood. The vision of the NCP as envisaged in the pamphlet is ?community that is self reliant, visionary, having sense of consensus, and the ability for self restrain.? The NCP concept has three broad objectives which it aims to achieve. The objectives are: to instil the spirit of love and the sense of responsibility among individuals and the community; to forge a cohesive relationship among neighbours; and to enhance a harmonious relationship amongst residents residing in the same neighbourhood.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the level of neighbourhood cohesiveness and the respondents? perceptions and awareness of the NCP. This paper is divided into three major sections; the literature review, the methodology and the discussions and findings of the survey.

LITERATURE REVIEW
There are a number of studies which have been carried out to evaluate neighbourhood cohesiveness. Schwab (1992: 351) conducted a study of cohesive neighbourhood in a develop country ? the United States. Yahya Ibrahim (1995) conducted a study on the same issue in Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia while Shafie Bohari et al (1994) studied the concept in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. Past studies indicated that there is a high level of individualism and low socialization and interaction among residents because of different lifestyles, values, socio-economic status and occupations. Schwab?s findings caused endless debate on the issues of neighbourhood cohesiveness. His findings reflect that neighbourhood cohesiveness seemed not to work well in big cities Schwab(1992: 351) who interviewed some of the respondents in his study summarized the findings as:

In small towns it is natural to be passing friendly with every one nearby, and in a small town it works. But in New York there ate too many people nearby. Just try to be friendly to everyone you meet there. Not only will you never get where you are going, but you would be making a nuisance of yourself to thousand of people who have their own errands to run. The very multitude of people makes it necessary for us to stare through beyond one another.

In a more serious another vein, Schwab succinctly described his conversation with one of the respondents where his respondent boldly told him:

I am living in an apartment house: I would not care who lives above me, below me, or in the next apartment. I want to choose my friends. I do not care to have them trusted upon me by the rental agents. And I do not want people dropping in to borrow whatever people borrow, and not to chitchat whatever people chitchat (Schwab, 1992: 352).

The significance of this study indicates that in big cities like New York, it is impossible and cumbersome for local authorities to implement the concept of cohesive neighbourhood. But there is stark contrast between Schwab?s study and the findings of other researches from this part of the world.
In ASEAN cities such as Singapore, Residents? Committees (RCs) are being formed in all public housing estates. These RCs promote neighbourliness, racial harmony and community cohesiveness amongst the residents through a wide range of activities. The activities include block parties, neighbourhood watch, civil defence programme, tuition classes, educational tours, dialogue sessions, singing, health screening and social gathering. Through these activities, the residents interact with one another and understand better government actions and policies which affects their lives and that of their neighbours.
Yahya Ibrahim (1995) conducted a study among 240 respondents from various neighbourhood units in Shah Alam, Selangor, found out that social interaction between neighbours is determined by many factors. The factors determining the success and failure of such social interactions amongst neighbours are socio-economic, cultural and ethnicity. To him different socio-economic status of the respondents do not have much impact on their social interaction. But there are other factors namely ethnic differences, the place of origin, and other environment differences of living in the municipality could cause a less cohesive social interaction amongst the neighbour.
According to Yahya Ibrahim about 78 per cent of the respondents recognized and know their immediate neighbour, but on the contrast only 13 per cent of the respondents know all the neighbours in their neighbourhood unit, and 21 percent of the respondents normally communicate and want to up-date themselves with is happening i their neighbourhood. In addition to the above, Yahya Ibrahim?s research is also significant because it revealed that only 35 per cent of the respondents would believe their immediate neighbours. In his study, Yahya Ibrahim (1995: 102) also gauged the level of cooperation and the willingness of the respondents to help each other in time of need amongst the neighbours. Surprisingly he found out that the level of cooperation and willingness to assist each other in time of need was very low. The neighbours would only help each other during the kenduri and would turn up for gotong royong.
Shafie Bohari et al (1994) conducted a research among Rukun Tetangga at three housing estates and two villages at five different locations in Kuching. The three housing estates are Batu Kawa Low Cost Housing Estate, Tamah Malihah and Heng Guan Garden, while the two village are Haji Baki and Seberang Ulu. The findings of this research indicated that 27.60 per cent of the respondents at Batu Kawa Low Cost Housing Estate, 42.40 per cent at Haji Baki and 60 percent at Seberang Ulu felt that they are not at ease staying at their respective neighbourhoods. The finding revealed that 44.8 per cent of the respondents from Batu Kawa felt that their neighbours were not friendly toward their neighbours (Shafiee Bohari et al, 1994: 23). If this finding is to be considered, it can be easily construed that the level of cohesiveness among neighbours at some of the housing estates in Sarawak is still very low.

METHODOLOGY
This is an exploratory study in which a survey was carried out at three different types of residential areas vis a vis: the traditional villages, housing estates, and resettlement schemes. The traditional villages selected in this study were Kampung No. 5, Kampung Santubong, Kampung and Kampung Sejingkat, while the housing estates were Taman Fitrah, Taman Sri Wnagi and Taman Tunku and the resettlement schemes chosen were Bako, Bandar Baru Samariang, Buntal and Rampangi. A purposive random sampling technique was employed where enumerators were engaged to fill in the interview schedules at the various locations which have been identified by DBKU for the implementation of the NCP.
Respondents were interviewed by the enumerators based on the questions in the interview schedule. The interviews were conducted in the month of June and July 2002. Respondents in the survey were asked how many neighbours do they know; types of neighbourhood programmes that they are participating in; where and when do they meet their neighbours; what are the topics of discussion during their meeting with their neighbours; their feeling while living in the neighbourhood; participation in the neighbourhood activities; and what are the roles they can play in promoting cohesive neighbourhood. Data from the interview schedules were analysed using the SPSS version 11. Respondents were also asked for their opinion on the level of neighbourhood cohesiveness at the respective place of residence

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Majority of the respondents in this study were Malays which accounted for 94.16 per cent of the respondents and the remaining 5.84 per cent are non Malays. Out of this, 27.86 per cent of the respondents are residing in the housing estates namely; Taman Fitrah, Taman Sri Wangi and Taman Tunku in Petra Jaya; 46.58 per cent are residing in the resettlement schemes namely Bandar Baru Samariang and Rampangi, and 25.46 per cent of the respondents are from the traditional villages vis Kampong No. 5, Kampong Santubong, Sejingkat and Bako.
Respondents? Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Cohesive Programme
The Neighbourhood Cohesive Programme (NCP) had been implemented in selected areas in the under DBKU jurisdiction since 2000 after the programme was launched by the Chief Minister. It has been almost four years since the NCP had been implemented. Surprisingly only more than one-third (32.7 %) of the respondent know the programme. Majority of the respondents especially those from the traditional villages do not know of the programme, hence there is a high number (92.7 %) who are not participating in the NCP. There are a number of reasons which could explain this. Firstly the NCP may not be implemented in their neighbourhood. Secondly, their may be lack of publicity of the programme, and thirdly the respondents themselves are not keen to participate in the programme.
An important aspect to evaluate neighbourhood cohesiveness is to find out whether neighbours are acquainted to each other (Schwab, 1995; and Yahya Ibrahim, 1995). Table No. 1 below shows the number of neighbours whom the respondents have acquaint with while residing in the respective residential areas. More than one third (39.6 %) of the respondents in this survey said that they know less than 15 neighbours in their neighbourhood. Another 6.6 per cent claimed to know from 16-20 person in their respective residential areas, while 0.7 percent know about 21 to 30 neighbours as compared to 5.2 per cent of the respondents know about 26-30 persons in their neighbourhood, and 8.8 per cent know about 36-40 neighbours. However 38.5 per cent of respondents know more than 40 neighbours in the neighbourhood with 53.6 per cent of the respondents are living in the housing estates, will the remaining 34.46 per cent and 29.2 per cent are from the resettlement schemes and traditional villages respectively.

Table No. 1: Number of Neighbours Known to Respondents

Number of neighbours known Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
<15 52 14.5 282 47.2 174 53.0 508 39.6
16 ? 20 39 10.9 11 1.9 35 10.7 85 6.6
21 ? 25 6 1.7 - 0 3 0.9 9 0.7
26 ? 30 41 11.5 17 2.8 9 2.7 67 5.2
31 ? 35 2 0.5 1 0 6 1.8 8 0.6
36 ? 40 26 7.3 81 13.5 6 1.8 113 8.8
> 40 192 53.6 207 34.6 95 29.1 494 38.5
Total 358 100.0 598 100.0 328 100.0 1284 100.0

Some exploratory research revealed that one of the ways to find out neighbourhood cohesiveness is by investigating how often the neighbours meet each other (Yahya Ibrahim, 1995; Shafie Bahari et al. 1994). This study indicates that almost all the respondents meet their neighbour regularly, with more than half (59.5 %) of respondents meet their neighbours every day, 5.9 per cent meet once in every week, 7.5 per cent meet at least twice every week, 12.6 per cent meet three times, 6.5 per cent meet four times, and the remaining 7.0 and 1.0 per cent meet five and six times in a week respectively. It can be deduced that most respondents meet their neighbours thus some element of cohesiveness have already been in existence in the study area.
Table No. 2: Number of Meetings with Neighbours
Times per week Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Once a week 49 13.7 16 2.7 11 3.4 76 5.9
Two times 28 7.8 54 9.0 15 4.6 97 7.5
Three times 58 16.2 80 13.4 24 7.3 162 12.6
Four times 29 8.1 24 4.0 30 9.1 83 6.5
Five times 17 4.8 26 4.3 47 14.3 90 7.0
Six times 4 1.1 6 1.0 2 0.6 12 1.0
Everyday 173 48.3 392 65.6 199 60.7 764 59.5
Total 358 100.0 598 100.0 328 100.0 1284 100.0
Meeting Time and Place
A favourite time for the respondents living in the same neighbourhood to meet are at four designated occasions. Parties or Majlis Kenduri, weekends, festival occasions and praying time are the four major occasions when respondents meet each other.
The findings of this survey shown 70.09 per cent of the respondents meet each other during parties such as wedding, birthday parties and etc. Meanwhile 79.28 per cent meet their neighbours during weekends. This is because such parties are often held during the weekend. Apart from that 70.09 per cent meet their neighbours during festivals, however slightly more than half (69.70 %) meet their neighbours during the praying time. This is common among respondents who frequented the mosques or suraus to pray.
Table No. 3. Meeting Time with Neighbours

Meeting Time Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Weekdays 129 20.2 206 32.2 305 47.8 640 49.84
Weekends 287 28.2 484 47.5 247 24.3 1018 79.28
Parties 262 25.6 521 50.2 254 24.5 1037 80.76
Praying time 202 22.6 430 48.0 263 29.4 895 69.70
Festivals 180 20.0 467 51.88 253 28.1 900 70.09
At night 34 42.5 31 38.75 15 18.8 80 6.23

There are three most popular meeting place for neighbour living in the same neighbourhood. The place are the respondent?s own house, their neighbours? house and lastly mosques. About 94.2 per cent of the respondents meet their neighbours at their own house, 75.9 per cent at their neighbours? house and 64.6 per cent at mosques. While less than half (43.4 %) meet their neighbours at nearby shop. In addition, the table below shows only 18.8 per cent of the respondents meet each other at sports venues, 43.4 per cent meet at shops or restaurants, 27.3 per cent meet at bus station.
Table No. 4: Meeting Place
Meeting place Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Neighbour?s
House 181 50.6 488 81.6 305 93.0 974 75.9
Own houses 324 90.5 568 95.0 318 97.0 1210 94.2
Mosque 213 59.5 303 50.7 314 95.7 830 64.6
Office 50 14.0 105 17.6 294 89.6 449 35.0
Sports venues 45 12.6 99 16.6 97 29.6 241 18.8
Shop 27 7.5 294 49.2 236 72.0 557 43.4
Bus station 71 19.8 130 21.7 150 45.7 351 27.3
Others 13 3.6 9 1.5 2 0.6 24 1.87
Issues Discussed During Meeting
When meeting their neighbours, respondents tend to talk about any thing or just chitchat while others would discuss current issues, discus family or personal matters with their neighbours. About 81.5 per cent of the respondents would just chit chat with their neighbours over a cup of coffee either at their own house, their neighbour house or at the coffee shops in their respective villages. The remaining 72.8 per cent would discuss current issues either happening locally or abroad which is of interest to them. The remaining 30.8 per cent and 8.5 per cent discussed issues pertaining to their family and personal matters respectively.

Table No. 5: Issues Discussed During Meeting
Issues discussed Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Chit chat 209 58.4 510 85.3 327 99.7 1046 81.5
Current issues 248 69.3 413 69.1 274 83.5 935 72.8
Family 134 37.4 148 24.7 114 34.8 396 30.8
Personal 29 8.1 43 7.2 37 11.3 109 8.5
Others 15 4.2 4 0.2 3 0.9 22 1.7

Respondents? Perception Towards Their Neighbourhood
Respondents in this survey were asked whether they feel proud living at their respective neighbourhood. The result of this survey indicated that the majority of them feel proud living in the neighbourhood. The highest percentage (97.5 %) are residents in the housing estates, followed by 95.4 per cent respondents in the traditional villages, and 92.3 per cent from the resettlement schemes.

Table No. 6: Respondents Feeling Proud Living in their Neighbourhood
Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Yes 349 97.5 552 92.3 313 95.4 1214 94.6
No 8 2.2 34 5.7 15 4.6 57 4.4
Not sure 1 0.3 12 2.0 - - 13 1.0
Total 358 100.0 598 100.0 328 100.0 1284 100

Participation in Neighbourhood Activities
In this study respondents were asked to indicate the activities they are involved in at the grass root level. There are eight types of activities namely religious activities, charity, attending public assemblies, sporting activities, gotong royong, recreational activities and the Majlis Kenduri. From the table we can safely infer that less that one quarter of the residents have participated in activities at the grass root level. The Majlis Kenduri scores the highest number of percentage (38.8 %), while 24.1 per cent participate in gotong royong activities organized within their neighbourhood and this is followed by 23.5 per cent who participated in religious activities.
There are two activities which attract less participation from the respondents. The activities are recreational activities and the sewing/cooking activities. There are only 8.4 per cent of the respondents participated in the recreational activities, while only 9.3 percent participated in the sewing/cooking activities. Those who participated in the sewing/cooking activities are mostly the female respondents. From this finding we can conclude that the level of public participation in the study area is unsatisfactory. Hence to harness public participation at the local level there must be some form of incentives to attract the respondents to participate in the activities.
Table No. 7: Respondents Participation in Neighbourhood Activities
Activities Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Religious activities 37 10.3 107 17.9 158 48.2 302 23.5
Charity 23 6.42 92 15.4 55 16.8 170 13.2
Attending public assemblies 28 7.82 115 19.2 68 20.7 211 16.4
Sports 17 4.7 89 14.9 50 15.2 156 12.2
Gotong Royong 44 12.3 117 19.6 149 45.4 310 24.1
Recreation 8 2.2 85 14.2 15 4.6 108 8.4
Cooking/ sewing 4 1.1 88 14.7 27 8.2 119 9.3
Kennduri 80 22.3 189 31.6 178 54.3 447 38.8

Maintaining Cleanliness of the Neighbourhood
Respondents were asked to respond six items on regards to maintaining cleanliness of the neighbourhood. The item were (i) do they participate in the gotong royong activities held their neighbourhood? (ii) do they oversee that vandalism do not occur in their neighbourhood and advise their neighbour to maintain cleanliness? (iii) do they report any damages on public properties to the relevant authorities? And (iv) do they guard the area?
The findings of this survey indicated that more than 78.9 per cent of the respondents will involve themselves in the gotong royong activities organized toward the maintenance of cleanliness at their neighbourhood. Another 67.8 per cent will advise their neighbour to help maintain cleanliness, while 50.0 percent will report the damages on public properties to the relevant authorities. Less than half of the respondents keep a tab on vandalism in their neighbourhood. The finding of this survey shows that only 48.1 per cent of the respondents do such activities, and 33.8 per cent said that they guard the neighbourhood. In addition less than one-third (27.1 %) would donate cash or kind towards the cleanliness and beautification programmes activities at their neighbourhood.
Table No. 8: Contribution Towards Cleanliness of the Neighbourhood
Types of contributions Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Gotong royong 225 62.8 485 81.1 303 92.4 1013 78.9
Overseeing 166 46.4 261 43.6 191 58.2 618 48.1
Advise users 135 37.7 231 38.6 504 50.0 870 67.8
Report damage 120 33.5 348 58.2 174 53.0 642 50.0
Guarding the area 70 19.6 216 36.1 148 45.1 434 33.8
Donation 53 14.8 214 35.8 85 25.9 352 27.1

Maintaining Peace and Harmony
Maintaining peace and harmony in the neighbourhood is an essential component of the NCP concept (DBKU, 2000). Respondent were asked to responds to four items in the interview schedule find out how they help maintain peace and harmony in their neighbourhood. The items were (i) report to the relevant authorities, (ii) discuss with the neighbours, (iii) refer to the Village Development and Security Committee (JKKK), and, (iv) give advise to fellow villagers.
From the findings it was obvious that the majority (84.5 %) of the respondents will report to the relevant authorities in the event that there are elements that will disrupt peace and harmony in their neighbourhood. In this study 84.50 per cent of the respondents said they will report wrong doings in their neighbourhood to the relevant authorities. Hence in the event of house-breaking, vandalism, robbery, gang-fight which occur in the neighbourhood, the respondents will likely report such case to the Police. More than half of the respondents or 60.20 percent of the respondents will hold discussion with their neighbours on how to curb house-breaking, vandalism and robbery in their neighbourhood. While 57.32 per cent said they will refer such cases to the JKKK. Less than half or 43.30 per cent were willing to give advise to the culprits, while the remaining 4.28 per cent prefer to do nothing.

Table No. 9: Steps taken in Maintaining Peace and Harmony at the Neighbourhood
Steps Taken Residential Category
Housing Estates Resettlement Schemes Traditional Villages Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Report to the relevant authority 287 80.2 498 83.3 300 91.5 1085 84.5
Discussion with neighbours 163 45.5 324 54.2 286 87.2 773 60.2
Report to the JKKK 172 48.0 420 70.2 144 43.9 736 57.3
Give advise 85 23.7 229 38.3 242 73.8 556 43.3
Doing nothing 36 10.1 16 2.7 3 0.9 55 4.3

There are four items asked in the questionnaires to find out how the respondents in this study maintain peace and harmony in their neighbourhood. The items are (i) report to the relevant authorities, (ii) discuss with the neighbours, (iii) refer to the Village Development and Security Committee (JKKK), and, (iv) give advise to fellow villagers.
From the findings it is clear that the majority of the respondents will report to the relevant authorities in the event that there are elements that will disrupt peace and harmony in their neighbourhood. This study shows 84.5 per cent of the respondents say they will report wrong doings committed in their neighbourhood to the relevant authorities. Hence, in the event of house-breaking, vandalism, robbery, or gang-fight which occur in the neighbourhood, most of the respondents will likely report such case to the Police. More than half of the respondents or 60.2 per cent of the respondents will hold discussion with their neighbours on how to curb house-breaking, vandalism and robbery in their neighbourhood. In addition, 57.3 per cent will refer such cases to the JKKK. Less than half or 43.3 per cent are willing to give advise to the culprits. The remaining 4.28 percent prefer to do nothing.

Neighbours Responsibilities
In this study respondents were asked to rank the importance of the neighbours responsibility in maintaining a cohesive neighbour-relation in the neighbourhood. They were asked to respond to ten statements and rank its importance based on five ratings; (i) very important, (ii) important, (iii) moderately important, (iv) less important, and (v) not important. The ten statements are:
? Responsibility to recognize the neighbours;
? Responsibility to keep up-to-date record of the neighbours? home and office telephone numbers;
? Organize activities to sustain cohesive neighbour relationship;
? Participate in activities organized by the neighbours or other parties;
? Inform the neighbours and police if anything happen to public amenities or neighbours? properties;
? Inform the neighbours if respondents leave their houses;
? Ever willing to give assistance in time of needs and emergency?
? Share knowledge and experiences with neighbours;
? Clean the house surrounding and the near by area; and
? Always aware of undesirable activities which can disturb the neighbourhood.

(a) Responsibility to Know and Get Acquainted with Neighbours
Knowing the neighbours background such as their names and occupation is one of the prerequisites of the NCP. Most respondents in this study agreed that they should have the responsibility to know and get acquainted with their neighbours by knowing their social background. About 27.47 per cent of the respondents residing in the housing estates responded by saying that this is very important. This is equivalent to 98.6 per cent of the total respondents from the housing estates. For respondents residing in the resettlement schemes 46.2 per cent of the respondents rank this as very important. This number is equivalent to 96.32 per cent of the respondents in the areas. For the traditional villages, 25.47 per cent of them said the recognizing fellow neighbours is very important and this accounts for 99.7 per cent of total respondents from the traditional villages.

Table No.11: Responsibility to Know and Get Acquainted With Neighbours

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 353 98.6 576 96.3 327 99.7 1256 98.8
Important 4 1.1 17 2.8 1 0.3 22 1.7
Moderate 2 0.56 3 0.5 - - 5 0.4
Less important - - 2 0.33 - - 2 0.2
Not important - - - - - - - -
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(b) Responsibility to Keep Record of Neighbours? Telephone Numbers
Keeping records of the neighbours? telephone numbers is an important aspect in the NCP. Keeping the neighbours? telephone numbers enable them to contact each other or keep in-touch in the event that there is any untoward incident happened in the neighbourhood such as housebreaking, robberies and other dangers. In this study, the respondents are also asked to rank the importance of the statement on keeping up-to-date records of their neighbours? office and telephone numbers. Overall 74. 61 per cent of the respondents rank this statement a very important, compared to 11.99 per cent as important and 0.70 per cent as less important and 1.48 per cent as not important. The table below shows the findings of the above statement, in which 25.08 respondents from the housing estates this percentage accounts for 89.94 per cent of the total respondents in the housing estates, while 27.34 per cent or 58.70 per cent of the overall respondents of the respondents in the resettlement schemes claimed that keeping record of the neighbours? office and home telephone numbers as very important as compared to 2.19 per cent respondents from the traditional villages claimed that such an act is very important.

Table No.12: Responsibility To Keep Record of Neighbours? Telephone Numbers

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 322 89.9 351 58.7 285 78.7 958 74.6
Important 20 6.1 120 1.0 14 4.3 154 11.9
Moderate 12 3.4 115 19.2 17 5.2 144 1.1
Less important 2 0.6 3 0.5 4 1.2 9 0.7
Not important 2 0.6 9 1.5 8 2.4 19 1.5
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(c) Organize Activities to sustain cohesive neighbourhood
There are a number of activities which can be organized under the NCP. Such activities can include, majlis Ramah Tamah Idil Fitri, gotong royong, majlis Hari Raya Korban, Quoran recital and majlis berkhatan. When such activities are held, neighbours are able to mingle around amongst themselves. Respondents are asked to rank the level of importance of organizing such activities. The findings revealed that there are about 67.44. per cent of the respondent in this study are of the opinion that responsibility organizing activities as very important in sustaining cohesive neighbourhood. 23.29 per cent of the respondents from the housing estates, 22.89 percent from the resettlement schemes, and 21. per cent respondents from the traditional villages viewed this as very important. If we compare it with the total number of respondents from each residential category, 83.52 per cent of the respondents from the housing estates, 49.16 per cent from the resettlement schemes, and 83.23 per cent of the respondents from the traditional villages said that organizing activities at the neighbourhood as a very important steps in ensuring cohesive neighbourhood (Table 13).

Table No.13: Responsibility to Organize Activities to Sustain Cohesive Neighbourhood

Level of
Importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 299 83.5 294 49.2 273 83.2 866 67.4
Important 29 8.1 182 30.4 19 5.8 230 17.9
Moderate 26 7.2 115 19.2 19 5.8 160 12.6
Less important 2 0.6 4 0.7 4 1.2 10 0.8
Not important 2 0.6 3 0.5 13 4.0 18 1.4
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(d) Participation in Activities Organized by Neighbours and Other Parties
Participation in activities organized by neighbours or other parties such as attending wedding ceremonies, Hari Raya Open House, and any other kenduri as very important avenues to forge cohesive neighbourhood amongst neighbours (Yahya, 1995; and Shafiee, et al., 1994). In this survey more than three quarter (75.8 %) of the respondents viewed that participating in activities organized by the neighbours and other parties as a very responsibility in sustaining cohesive neighbourhood. Out of the 75.8 per cent, 86.0 per cent are residents from housing estates, 63.3 per cent from the resettlement schemes, and 87.5 per cent are from the traditional villages.

Table No.14: Participate in Activities Organized by Neighbours or Other Parties

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
Scheme Traditional
village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 308 86.0 378 63.2 287 87.5 973 75.8
Important 28 7.8 87 14.5 14 4.3 129 10.0
Moderate 21 5.9 126 21.1 17 5.2 164 12.8
Less important 1 0.3 3 0.5 4 1.2 8 0.6
Not important - 4 0.6 6 1.8 10 0.8
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(e) Inform Neighbours or Police of Trespassing and Vandalism
The overall result of this survey indicates that 87.2 per cent respondents feel that it is a very important responsibility as a neighbour to inform their neighbours or the police in the event that some one trespasses the neighbours? properties or vandalize public properties. 2.7 per cent of the respondents viewed this as an important responsibility as compared to 0.3 per cent and 0.4 per cent who viewed the responsibility to inform the neighbours or police of such wrong doings as less and not important.

Table No.15: Inform Neighbours or Police of Trespassing and Vandalism

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
Scheme Traditional
village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 328 91.6 486 81.27 306 93.3 1120 87.2
Important 16 4.5 15 2.5 4 1.2 35 2.7
Moderate 9 2.5 96 16.1 15 4.6 120 9.4
Less important 1 0.3 1 0.2 2 0.6 4 0.3
Not important 4 1.1 - - 1 0.3 5 0.4
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(f) Inform Neighbours if Respondents Leave Their Houses
Inform neighbours if one leaves the house for holidays is one of the ingredients in forging a cohesive neighbourhood among neighbours. Obviously 80.7 per cent of the respondents see this as a very important responsibility, 6.0 per cent claimed it as important, 4.5 per cent less important and 0.6 percent as not important. When compared to the individual residential category, 93.0 per cent respondent from the housing estates, 69.7 per cent from resettlement schemes and 90.2 per cent from traditional villages viewed informing neighbours when one leaves the house as a very important responsibility.

Table No.16: Inform Neighbours if Respondents Leave Their Houses

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
Scheme Traditional
village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 333 93.0 417 69.7 286 90.2 1036 80.7
Important 16 4.5 57 9.5 4 0.7 77 6.0
Moderate 4 1.1 79 13.2 23 3.8 106 8.3
Less important 4 1.1 44 7.4 10 1.7 58 4.5
Not important 1 0.3 1 0.2 5 0.8 7 0.6
Total 358 100 598 100 328 1284 100

(g) Willingness to Give Assistances in Time of Needs and Emergency
Apart from the above responsibilities, willingness to give assistance either in the form of cash or kind in time of needs and during an emergency to the neighbours in the neighbourhood is also seen as a responsibility in harnessing a cohesive neighbourhood unit. Majority (84.3%) of the respondents claimed that this is a very important responsibility to them, while only 0.3 per cent answered that this is not important. Hence it is a common practice in the for neighbours to assist each other in time of need or during an emergency.

Table No. 17: Willingness to Give Assistances in times of Need and Emergency

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 319 89.1 465 77.8 298 88.10 1082 84.3
Important 25 7.0 18 3.0 2 0.6 45 3.5
Moderate 11 3.1 27 4.5 18 5.5 56 4.4
Less important 2 0.6 88 14.7 7 2.1 97 7.6
Not important 1 0.3 - - 3 0.9 4 0.3
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(h) Sharing Knowledge and Experiences With Neighbours
Another way of forging a cohesive neighbourhood is by sharing knowledge and experience with neighbours in the same neighbourhood. This can be done at the numerous informal meeting between neighbours. They can share knowledge and experiences when discussing issues affecting them or local issues of interest. The finding shows that 64.6 per cent of the respondents viewed this as important with 89.1 respondents from the housing estates, a sizeable number (69.5 %) from the traditional villages, and slightly less than half (47.1 %) from the settlement schemes viewed sharing of knowledge and experiences as very important.

Table No. 18: Share Knowledge and Experiences With Neighbours

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 319 89.1 282 47.1 228 69.5 829 64.6
Important 25 7.0 86 24.0 14 4.3 125 9.7
Moderate 11 3.1 130 36.3 74 22.6 215 16.7
Less important 2 0.6 99 27.7 5 1.5 106 8.3
Not important 1 0.3 1 0.2 7 2.1 9 0.7
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(i) Clean the House Compound
One of the ways of beautifying the neighbourhood is to clean the house compound and surrounding the surrounding areas. This implies that the respondents need to keep the grass within his compound short and trim the shrubs and flowers near his house. In normal circumstances cutting of grass and trimming of shrubs and flowers are basically the task of some of the local authorities. Hence respondents may view such responsibility as not important. From the survey we found out that 67.5 per cent of the respondent viewed this as very important, 7.6 per cent as important, 5.0 as less important, 4.3 per cent as not important. The highest percentage (90.2 %) of the respondents who viewed cleaning of house compound and surrounding area near by the house as a very important responsibility, while the lowest (52.2 %) are respondents from the resettlement scheme.

Table No. 19: Clean the House Compound and the Surrounding Area

Level of
importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 323 90.2 312 52.2 232 70.7 867 67.5
Important 22 6.1 66 11.0 9 0.7 97 7.6
Moderate 10 2.8 118 19.7 72 12.1 200 15.6
Less important 2 0.6 58 9.7 4 1.2 64 5.0
Not important 1 0.3 44 7.4 11 3.4 56 4.3
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(j) Aware of Undesirable Activities Which Can Disrupt Neighbourhood
Security
Communities living harmoniously together amongst themselves in the neighbourhood is the basic tenets of a cohesive neighbourhood. To achieve this members of the community living in the same neighbourhood have to be aware of undesirable activities which can disrupt security in the neighbourhood. Hence the finding of this study shows the majority (70.6 %) feels that they should be aware of whatever happenings in the neighbourhood so that steps could be taken to alleviate the problem.

Table No. 20: Aware of Undesirable Activities Which Can Disrupt
Neighbourhood Security

Level of
Importance Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Very important 328 91.6 337 56.4 242 73.8 907 70.6
Important 19 5.3 27 4.5 8 2.4 54 4.21
Moderate 6 1.7 139 23.2 68 20.7 213 16.6
Less important 2 0.6 3 0.5 4 1.2 9 0.7
Not important 3 0.8 92 15.3 6 1.8 101 7.9
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(k) Participation in NCP Activities
There is a lukewarm responses amongst respondents in participating in the NCP activities. The trend seemed to be similar to those who participate in the NCP. However in terms of percentage of the number of respondents participating, it is less by about 9.3 per cent. From the table above they are 32.7 per cent respondents participated in the NCP, but from the table below the percentage involved in the NCP activities dropped to 23.4 per cent. From this finding we can infer that many respondents are aware of the various activities of the NCP. The highest percentage of respondents participated in the NCP activities are respondents from the traditional villages. On the other hand, the highest number who did not participate in the activities are respondents from the traditional villages. There are about 93.3 per cent of respondents who responded by saying that they do not participate in the NCP activities. The likely reason that could explain this could be that there has never been any NCP activities or programs being implemented in their villages.

Table No. 21: Participation in the NCP Activities

Participate in
NCP activities Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
Scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Yes 61 17.0 220 36.8 20 6.1 301 23.4
No 292 81.6 378 63.2 306 93.3 976 76.01
Not sure 5 1.4 - - 2 0.6 7 0.55
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

Realization of the NCP
There are five major elements which the policy makers viewed crucial in the realization the NCP. The elements are; increase social interaction between neighbours and local communities; cultivate interest and understanding among neighbours; responsible towards the security and harmony in the neighbourhood; taking care of the cleanliness and landscape of the neighbourhood, active participation in the activities organized by the neighbours and also the NCP activities from time to time. Respondents were to give their priority to each of the five statements based on five priorities namely; first, second, third, fourth, and fifth.

(a) Increase Social Interaction
One of the elements in the realization of the NCP is increase social interaction among neighbours and those living in the same neighbourhood. This could be achieved through various activities which can be organized by the NCP committees. Such activities can be in the form of a family day, majlis ramah tamah hari raya, sporting events or any other desirable activities which the NCP committee thinks can enhance social interaction between the neighbours. Interestingly, slightly more than half (55.1 %) of those interviewed in the study placed this element as their first priority. A plausible reason which helps to explain this could be the NCP committee can either be inactive since its formation or lack of funds to organize such activities and as a result no activities can be conducted. A sizeable number (18.6 %) of respondents viewed this as their last priority. The likely reason to explain this is because they view participating in such activities is a waste of time and efforts, where such time and efforts can be spent more meaningfully with their families and pursuing their own interests.

Table No.22: Increase Social Interaction Between Neighbours
And Local Community

Level of
Priority Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Not a priority 20 5.6 1 0.2 3 0.9 24 1.9
First 227 63.4 235 39.3 245 74.7 707 55.1
Second 32 8.9 54 9.0 33 10.1 119 9.3
Third 28 7.8 49 8.2 23 7.0 100 7.8
Fourth 17 4.7 64 10.7 14 4.3 95 7.4
Fifth 34 9.5 195 32.6 10 3.0 239 18.6
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(b) Cultivate Interest and Understanding Among Neighbours
The NCP recognizes that cultivating interest and understanding among neighbours as an important element in realizing the NCP concept. One of the ways to cultivate interest and understanding is by organizing activities such as gotong-royong in cleaning and beautifying the landscape in the neighbourhood, organizing joint activities such as the kelas ekonomi rumah tangga among the women living in the neighbourhood. The finding of this survey revealed that this is not the first priority, but, rather their second priority. The trend seemed to be similar in all the three residential categories.
This element is viewed as not the most important to the respondents probably, the respondents have their own priority such as putting the family first rather than the NCP. As such they prefer to spend their time more meaningfully with their family and their children. Another reason could be that they are not aware of the NCP activities because they were not aware of such activities. The final reason is because lackadaisical attitude towards the NCP. This could possibly explained why the level of participation among respondents in the NCP activities to relatively low.

Table No. 23: Cultivate Interest and Understanding Among Neighbours

Level of
Priority Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
Scheme Traditional
Village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Not a priority 20 5.6 1 0.2 3 0.9 24 1.87
First 48 13.4 130 21.7 31 9.5 209 16.28
Second 138 38.5 240 40.1 171 52.1 549 42.76
Third 44 12.3 108 18.1 52 15.8 204 15.89
Fourth 45 12.6 83 13.9 45 13.7 173 13.47
Fifth 63 17.6 36 6.0 26 7.9 125 9.74
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(c) Security and Harmony in the Neighbourhood
The third element in forging a cohesive neighbourhood based NCP concept is individuals in the neighbourhood should be responsible for maintaining security and harmony. By virtue of the importance of security and harmony at the grass root level, the government have created the Jawatankuasa Keselamatan dan Kemajuam Kampong collectively known as JKKK in all villages throughout the country and also in some selected housing areas and also resettlement schemes. The objectives of the JKKK are to assist development planning at the grass root as well as to help maintain peace and harmony at the grass root.
It is surprising to note that event though the government place a lot of emphasis on security and harmony at the grass root, the respondents tend not to place the responsibility for maintaining security and harmony in their neighbourhood as their first or second priority, because they feel that such responsibility should be allocated to the JKKK and also to the relevant body namely the local Vigilant Corps-RELA and members of the Police force. In view of this reason, most of the respondents (36.1 %) have placed this responsibility as their third priority.

Table No. 24: Responsible for Security and Harmony in the Neighbourhood

Level of
Priority Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Not a priority 20 5.6 1 0.2 3 0.9 24 1.9
First 26 7.3 164 27.4 27 8.2 217 16.9
Second 115 32.1 126 21.1 53 16.2 294 22.9
Third 133 37.2 178 29.8 153 46.6 464 36.1
Fourth 34 9.5 103 17.2 71 21.6 208 16.2
Fifth 30 8.4 26 4.4 21 6.4 77 6.0
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(d) Taking Care of Public Amenities, Cleanliness of the Neighbourhood
The fourth element essential in realizing the NCP is by taking care of public amenities, maintaining cleanliness and beauty of neighbourhood. Road signs, street lightings, decorative lights, public toilets, public phones, fire hydrants are some of the public amenities found in most housing estates as well as in traditional villages. These amenities are meant to assist road users, villagers and individual to find their way. Decorative lights are meant to beautify the neighbourhood. But very often these amenities are vandalize. Toilet walls are written with graffiti, public phones with their receiver badly damaged and cannot be of any use, decorative lights being stole. On the other hand cleanliness can be maintained by keeping the compound clean and tidy by cutting the grass and shrubs surrounding the house regularly. In addition respondents can help beautify the landscape in the by planting trees and flowers in the neighbourhood. According to the respondents in this study, this is not their top priority, but merely their fourth priority. Majority of the respondents (43.5 %) viewed this as their fourth priority.

Table No. 25: Taking Care of Public Amenities, Cleanliness and
Beautify of the Neighbourhood

Level of
Priority Residential category
Housing estates Resettlement
scheme Traditional
village Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Not a priority 20 5.6 1 0.2 3 0.9 24 1.9
First 12 3.4 22 3.7 15 2.5 49 3.8
Second 36 10.1 146 24.4 49 14.9 231 18.0
Third 57 15.9 176 29.4 75 22.9 308 24
Fourth 185 51.7 213 35.6 161 49.1 559 43.5
Fifth 48 13.4 40 6.7 25 7.6 113 8.8
Total 358 100 598 100 328 100 1284 100

(e) Active Participation of Citizens in Activities and NCP
The last element essential in the realization of the NCP is active participation of citizens in activities organized under the NCP. Though participation in the activities of the NCP is seen as very crucial in sustaining the success of the NCP, but this is not the case for the respondents in this study. Slightly more than half (51.2 %) of the respondents indicated that active participation of citizens in the activities of the NCP as their last priority. Thus we can infer that the level of citizens participation in social governance is relatively low in the study area.

CONCLUSIONS
The result of this exploratory revealed that there were some elements of neighbourhood cohesiveness especially at the traditional villages where the percentage of the respondents who know more than 40 of their neighbours is more than those at the housing estates and resettlement areas. From the finding it is evident that the majority (95.4 %) of the respondents are satisfied with the level of cohesiveness that is prevalent at their neighbourhood. Most of the respondents in this study meet their neighbours every day. However, the meetings were confined during weekends, parties, festive seasons and praying time. In addition, majority of them were not members of any non-government organization, be it charitable, political parties, youth organization or the neighbourhood committee. In view of this observation, most of them can be classified by spectators, whom McApline described as one who watched thing happens. The findings of this study also revealed that most of the respondents meet their neighbours either at their own house or at their neighbours? house. Apart from that they also meet their neighbours at the mosques, and at the sport arenas. Generally the respondents are satisfied with the level of cohesiveness at their neighbourhood. The success of the NCP rest very much on how well the residents in the respective residential areas within the DBKU jurisdiction are receptive towards the programs. The findings indicates that public participation and the spirit of volunteerism in the NCP is still very minimal. However, participation of the residents in the NCP activities is crucial in sustaining the programs. To ensure the of the NCP, DBKU as an implementing agency, should continue to a play pivotal role in cultivating the interest of the residents in the NCP by providing funds and advisory support to the respective NCP committees.

REFERENCES

Berry, J. M., Portnoy, K. E. and Thomson, K. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban
Democracy. Washington, D. C.: Brooking Institution.

Dye. R. T. 1992. Understanding Public Policy [7thEd]. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Guzman, Sergio. 1999. Increased Citizen Participation in Governance at Local and
National Level. [http://www.info.usaid/mz/S02/citizen.html].

Judge, David, Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman. (Eds.). Theories of Urban Politics.
London Sage: Publications Ltd.

Masson, J. 1994. Alberta's Local Governments: Politics and Democracy. Edmonton:
University of Alberta Press.

McAlpine, Scott. 1999. The Public Role. [http://www.gprc.ab.ca/courses]

Parfect, Michael and Power, Gordon. 1997. Planning for Urban Quality: Urban
Design in Town and Cities. New York: Routledge

Sarok, A. A. ?Element of Good Governance: A Conceptual Framework? paper
presented in a ?Workshop on Local Governance and Emerging
Challenges" organized by Sarawak Development Institute (SDI) and
Angkatan Zamam Mangsang on 24-25 September 1998 at Mega Hotel, Miri.

Sarok, A. A. ?Public Participation in Local Governance? paper presented in a
?Workshop on Local Governance? organized by Sarawak
Development Institute and Angkatan Zaman Mangsang on 27-28 July 1999, at
Tanah Mas Hotel, Sibu.

Schwab, William A. 1992. The Sociology of Cities. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.

Shafiee Bohari, Sim, A. H and Anthony K. S. 1994. Kajian Kejiranan Dikalangan
Penduduk Rukun Tetanga Bandaraya Kuching: Kuching: Angkatan
Zaman Mansang.[Unpublished Research Report]

Yahya Ibrahim. 1995. Pembandaran dan Kejiranan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka.