URBAN REDEVELOPMENT IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS

Urban redevelopment is often viewed through the lenses of land titles, planning approvals, and economic value. But on the ground, the impact is far more human than technical.

When long-standing kampung communities are relocated, the loss is not merely physical. It dismantles multi-generational social networks, informal economies, caregiving structures, and the sense of safety that comes from knowing every neighbour by name. These are intangible yet critical assets almost always missing from feasibility reports and EIA submissions.

Compensation and relocation plans may meet procedural requirements, yet still fall short of replacing what residents truly lose:

a) continuity for the elderly,

b) stability for children,

c) decades of home improvements,

d) and livelihoods sustained within the community ecosystem.

From a governance and planning perspective, development should not only prioritise land efficiency or compliance. It must incorporate social impact assessments, genuine community engagement, and transition frameworks that minimise displacement trauma, practices that, unfortunately, are rarely implemented meaningfully.

Sustainable development is not purely about infrastructure, it is fundamentally about people.

This is not an anti-development stance. It is a call to ensure that promises are honoured. Too often, after projects begin, terms change under the justification of rising construction costs, additional variation works, or “unforeseen conditions” - and communities are pressured to accept new terms they never agreed to. Influence and power should never override fairness and integrity.

Progress becomes meaningful only when the transformation of land results in the upliftment of lives, not the displacement of them.

FROM BUTTONS TO TOUCHSCREENS : A GENERATION'S JOURNEY THROUGH THE WIRELESS REVOLUTION

There was a time when technology felt solid, mechanical, and reassuringly simple. Phones had physical buttons or rotary dialing, televisions needed an antenna that never pointed the right way, and computers hummed loudly as they worked. For those of us born in the 60s, we grew up in an era where posting a letter was faster than downloading a file, a camera needed film, and a “mobile phone” looked like something carried by army officers, not teenagers. The Internet, when it finally arrived, screeched through dial-up modems, and a single webpage could take minutes to load.

Yet within one lifetime, everything changed.

From the first time we saw an infrared beam blinking between two Nokia phones, to watching Bluetooth quietly replace cables, to connecting our homes through WiFi, cloud storage, and seamless broadband, we have lived through one of the most dramatic technological transformations in human history. What once felt like futuristic ideas from Star Trek and Star Wars have quietly slipped into our daily routines. Today’s youth grow up with touchscreens before they learn to read, Internet access before they learn the meaning of “offline,” and wireless earbuds that deliver crystal-clear audio without a single wire to untangle.

Behind all this “effortless magic” lies decades of hard science. Capacitive touchscreens measure tiny electrical shifts beneath the glass. Bluetooth devices speak to each other through low-energy radio waves hopping 1,600 times per second. WiFi blankets entire homes with invisible connectivity. Infrared communication, once the king of short-range data transfer, has long been replaced by high-speed networks, NFC payments, and AI-driven ecosystems. What once required bulky machines, endless cables, and complex instructions now fits into a device that slips into the pocket of a 12-year-old.

But technology didn’t just evolve, we evolved with it.

Those of us who typed on typewriters now type on virtual keyboards. We replaced stacks of photo albums with digital galleries. We traded cassette tapes for streaming services where millions of songs sit patiently in our phones. We moved from encyclopedias to search engines, from pen-pal letters to instant messaging across continents. And somehow, despite the rapid pace of change, we adapted, learned, and continued moving forward, proving that curiosity doesn’t age.

As we step deeper into an era of artificial intelligence, mixed reality, smart homes, and seamless wireless ecosystems, it’s impossible not to feel both humbled and amazed. What the younger generation sees as normal, we still recognise as extraordinary. Because we remember the world before the “swipe,” before the “tap,” before the “pairing,” and certainly before the “WiFi.”

And maybe that’s our unique advantage, we appreciate every convenience with a sense of wonder.

AGEISM: A Subtle Contradiction in the Workplace

As a former Human Resource Manager, I’ve always understood the value of experience yet, in my early 50s, I’ve faced the same subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) barriers, age as a deciding factor, even when my knowledge in technology and leadership far exceeds that of younger candidates.

I recall an interview for a senior position where a young colleague cynically implied we were competing for the same role. I had to clarify that I was applying for a more senior position than him and yet, I didn’t get the job. Likely due to ageism.

Meanwhile, another troubling pattern emerges where - society encourages the elderly to accept being “too old,” “senile,” or “useless,” even "forced" to set up their own organization or business.

Ageism is literally age discrimination, quietly happening across industries, even in places where older leadership is fully accepted, or even preferred.

Double Standards in Leadership vs Employment

It’s ironic, Prime Ministers, Ministers, Directors, Chairmen, CEOs, many serve past 60 or 70 with no questions about their capacity.

Yet in corporate hiring, especially for middle-management or technical roles, candidates above 50 often face subtle or direct age filters.

Question: If age doesn’t disqualify someone from running a country or agency, why does it disqualify them from a managerial or specialist role?

Ageism Disguised as “Polite” Questions

Many have faced this in interviews:

“What year did you graduate?”

“How many years of experience do you have?”

“Are you able to adapt to new technology?”

These questions are coded ways to guess age. In many countries, they’re recognized as covert age discrimination, but in Malaysia, they are often normalized due to lack of explicit legal protection in private sector hiring.

Older Leaders vs Older Employees

Companies often think differently:

- Leadership roles: value experience, networks, reputation

- Operational/technical roles: wrongly assume age = lower speed, less adaptability, shorter runway

Reality: People in their 50s and 60s often bring stability, loyalty, institutional memory, and strategic thinking younger teams lack. They also job-hop less and deliver consistent results.

Institutionalized Age Bias in Financial Institutions

When banks limit loans up to age 58, it sends a message:

“After this age, you’re too risky, even if healthy, employed, and capable.”

Policies like this reinforce ageism, despite life expectancy now being 75–80 and many people working beyond 60.

The Bottom Line

Yes - this is discrimination.

No - it’s not justified by data.

And yes - it contradicts the way governments and corporations celebrate older leaders at the top while ignoring older talent at the ground level.

Age should be seen as an asset, not a limitation.

HARD TALK

When people have no choice, they turn to online moneylenders. Despite high interest or scammers demanding fees, many take the risk. Banks know this issue but do little, imposing age limits even on healthy individuals, slowly pushing them further into financial hardship.

HIGHLAND TOWERS TRAGEDY REVISITED

Credit : Astro Awani

Disclaimer

This article is a technical synthesis prepared for informational and educational purposes only. All explanations, timelines, interpretations, and engineering assessments in this document are derived from open and publicly accessible sources, including news reports, academic papers, task‑force summaries, legal documents, and published case studies.

This article does not represent, quote, or replace any official government report, forensic investigation report, or authoritative findings issued by relevant Malaysian agencies, professional bodies, or courts.

The analysis is prepared from a civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering perspective, with supplementary notes on regulatory and administrative processes, strictly for general understanding. It may simplify or generalize certain technical aspects and should not be used as a substitute for professional engineering judgement, legal advice, or regulatory compliance.

While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, errors or omissions may exist, and interpretations may differ from official positions. Any use of any contents derived from this article is at the reader’s own discretion and responsibility.

Block 1 of the Highland Towers condominium (Ulu Klang, near Bukit Antarabangsa) collapsed on 11 December 1993 after a large, retrogressive landslide behind the building pushed the foundations and destroyed a retaining structure, the slide was the product of hillside clearance/over-development, failed drainage/diversion works and inadequate slope design/maintenance. 48 people died

1) Short timeline/Project Background

Highland Towers was built in phases in the 1970s–early 1980s at the foot of a steep, terraced hill in Taman Hillview / Ulu Klang. Block 1 (the southern block) is the one that collapsed.

In the early 1990s the Bukit Antarabangsa hilltop behind Highland Towers was developed (new roads, houses and earthworks). That development involved extensive cutting, vegetation removal and installation of diversion/drainage works (the “East Stream” diversion pipe is repeatedly mentioned in accounts). Heavy/repeated rain in December 1993 then triggered progressive slope failure. 

On 11 Dec 1993 the down-slope movement and failure of retaining works/earth mass undermined the piled foundations/rail-pile system behind Block 1; the block moved, fractured and collapsed. Rescue recovered 2 survivors and 48 fatalities.

2) Possible Engineering and Technical Root Causes

Several post-incident theories (later refuted) theorized that:

wastewater and greywater did not discharge properly into designated drains, leading to seepage and percolation into the subsurface soils behind Block 1. Over time, this may have softened the foundation soils, increased moisture content, reduced effective stress, and compromised pile stability. While not the primary confirmed trigger, personally I feel that this factor despite a good theory should be taken into account as a plausible contributing mechanism that exacerbated overall ground saturation and instability.

The following causes; however; are the commonly agreed, evidence-based causes cited by geotechnical studies and task-force reviews:

• Slope destabilisation from hilltop development and vegetation removal - Clearing and terracing reduced root strength, changed surface runoff and exposed slopes to erosion during heavy rain,

• Inadequate drainage and failed diversion pipe(s) - Diversion/pipe systems carrying the east creek and surface runoff either were under-designed, poorly installed or ruptured; water ingress and seepage into the slope greatly reduced soil shear strength and caused progressive erosion. Accounts point to burst diversion pipes and uncontrolled flow of silt, debris and water down the slope,

• Failure of retaining works / shallow support systems - Retaining walls and “raker/rail” piles used behind the car-park/retaining zones were unable to resist the lateral mass of saturated soil. Some authors point to inadequate design for lateral soil loads and progressive undermining of foundations,

• Inadequate site investigation and design assumptions - Subsequent case studies say geotechnical investigations, soil testing and slope stability analysis were insufficient or not conservative enough for the hillside conditions, thus, designs did not properly account for heavy rain pore pressure buildup and retrogressive failure mechanisms,

• Progressive (retrogressive) landslide mechanism - Once a lower portion failed (retaining wall/toe), the failure propagated upslope, moving very large volumes of saturated soil/mud that pushed on foundations (estimates in popular accounts describe huge volumes) and caused structural collapse. 

Put simply: water + unstable cut slope + insufficient drainage + inadequate retaining/foundation design = a retrogressive landslide that overloaded and undermined building foundations.

AI Generated Image - Simple Schematic - Not to Scale

3) Possible Institutional, Procedural failures 

During that time, the technical failures occurred in an environment of regulatory weakness, poor coordination and weak enforcement :

• Approvals without adequate hillside safeguards - Reviews after the event emphasised that state and local approvals allowed hillside development without consistent application of proper safeguards, guidelines or independent verification. The Malaysian Bar Task Force and subsequent studies list lack of compliance checks, inadequate planning procedures and approvals granted without sufficient technical oversight,

• Poor monitoring and maintenance - Drains, diversion pipes and retaining facilities require ongoing inspection and maintenance; the task force cites poor maintenance of drains/retaining walls and failure to act on residents’ complaints or visible signs,

• Fragmented responsibilities and weak verification of competence - The Task Force highlighted poor communication among developers, consultants, local authorities and state agencies and lack of independent verification of safety aspects for hillside works,

• Enforcement limits and legal immunity issues - In subsequent litigation the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) was at first held to have some pre-collapse liability in lower courts, but the Federal Court later ruled (2006) that the local council was immune under provisions of the Street, Drainage and Building Act (SDBA) for “approval and inspection” functions, a significant legal outcome that limited civil claims against the local authority. That judgment shaped the legal aftermath and discussion about local authority duties. 

4) Authorities and Parties Involved

• Local authority (MPAJ at the time) : issues site approvals, inspects stormwater/drainage and enforces building codes. Investigations and the Task Force later criticised approval practice and monitoring but in litigation MPAJ successfully invoked limited immunity for its regulatory functions,

• Jabatan Kerja Raya (PWD) : involved in slope/road infrastructure and (later) commissioned government inquiries into Bukit Antarabangsa landslides. The Task Force referenced a federal JKR investigation whose full public release was an issue at the time,

• Landowners, developers, consulting engineers : the main parties responsible for safe design, correct earthworks, proper drainage and supervision. Civil suits were pursued against developers, engineers and other private parties. The technical reviews criticise competence and execution at the development level,

• Department of Environment (DOE) and Department of Occupational Safety & Health (DOSH)? : At the time, DOE is normally concerned with environmental impact, erosion control and consent conditions while DOSH at the time focuses on workplace safety (less central to a post-occupancy landslide, but relevant for construction phase safety). Public records and the Task Force emphasis focus mainly on planning, JKR and local council responsibilities (rather than DOSH actions in the disaster’s immediate technical causes, most published technical reviews do not place DOSH at the centre of the collapse causes as the original OSHA 93 was still at its' infancy stage (where the author was involved in the (unofficial) translation of the Parliament handsard in the consultancy capacity serving an Australia-Malaysia JV Safety Consultant)

5) Aftermath

Lawsuits followed - banks and some defendants settled with homeowners. The Federal Court ruling on MPAJ’s immunity (2006) was a landmark - it limited claims against local authorities for pre-collapse regulatory actions, which in turn shaped how liability is apportionable in Malaysia. 

The tragedy triggered repeated public and professional calls for better hillside development guidelines, stricter geotechnical standards, improved drainage and monitoring and clearer institutional responsibilities, many of which were reflected in later regulations, guidelines and the Task Force recommendations. 

6) Lessons Learned 

Practical recommendations that come from the literature and task-force reviews:

• Require competent, independent geotechnical investigation and slope stability analysis for all hillside works; design conservatively for worst-case rainfall/pore pressure,

• Do not allow unchecked top-cutting/overdevelopment without robust retaining systems, positive drainage and a mandatory maintenance plan,

• Insist on durable, inspected drainage/diversion works (pipes, gutters, culverts), surface runoff must not be allowed to concentrate onto or into slopes,

• Improve inter-agency coordination (local councils, JKR/DID, DOE - now known as OSC) and make roles/responsibilities and enforcement clear. 

• Implement slope monitoring, early-warning (movement, pore pressure) and community reporting channels so warning signs trigger action,

7) Short caveats about sources and remaining uncertainties

Multiple technical reviews and academic case studies (UM/UMP theses, research papers) analyze the geotechnical mechanisms; the Malaysian Bar Task Force collated legal and regulatory problems. Some government inquiry reports were not widely released at the time, and some fine technical details (exact pipe locations, as-built details of the retaining pile system) are reconstructed from expert testimony and post-event studies rather than a single public forensic report. 

8)  Other Tragedies

It's important to mention that there have been other incidents at the surroundings after the Highland Towers tragedy :

a) Taman Hillview landslide (20 Nov 2002) : A slope failure in Taman Hillview destroyed a bungalow and killed 8 people. Investigations indicated re-activation of an old landslide/filled zone.

Engineering summary: deep-seated re-activation of an earlier slide mass and unstable fills; local drains and slope materials were friable and became saturated after heavy rainfall/runoff concentration. The incident occurred only a few hundred metres from the Highland Towers site, showing persistent area vulnerability. 

b) Bukit Antarabangsa/Taman Bukit Mewah landslide (6 Dec 2008) : A large landslide destroyed multiple houses and killed several people (reports vary: 4–5 fatalities reported in multiple sources). The failure affected a wide swathe of slope (tens to a hundred metres scale).

Engineering summary: classified by investigators as a deep-seated landslide with a large crown width and significant depth; mechanisms included prolonged/intense rainfall, slope cutting/filling and poor retaining/foundation for slope toes. The failure measurements recorded (crest width, length, depth) are consistent with a deep, translational/rotational mass movement rather than a small local slip.

c) Numerous smaller but significant slides and reactivations (1993–2010s) : Multiple smaller incidents, slope reactivations and failures have been recorded across Ulu Klang/Bukit Antarabangsa (research reports and the Malaysian Bar Task Force catalogue dozens of events and many remediation works). Several caused property loss and some caused fatalities over the years. 

Engineering summary: many were rainfall-triggered, involved cut/fill zones or old landslide scars, and were aggravated by obstructed or misdirected drainage, poor retaining-wall construction (rubble or inadequately anchored walls), or the presence of loose fill materials. Research reviews count multiple major incidents in the area across two decades and emphasise recurring weaknesses in hillside approvals and maintenance. 

9) Recurring Technical Themes (why these keep happening)

• Rainfall + infiltration/pore pressure: Many failures were rainfall-triggered; prolonged or intense rain increases pore water pressure, reducing effective stress and shear strength of residual or fill soils. This is the proximate trigger in most cases,

• Human modification of slopes: Hill cutting, terracing, filling of gullies and vegetation removal changed the hills’ natural equilibrium and often created vulnerable geometry (steep free faces, overloaded benches),

• Inadequate or failed drainage/diversion works: Under-designed, clogged, ruptured or poorly maintained surface and subsurface drainage concentrated flow or allowed seepage into slopes, a common aggravating factor,

• Use of weak fills and poor retaining practice: Poorly compacted fill, rubble walls and non-engineered toe supports were repeatedly implicated. Deep seated failures often involve weak layers or interfaces beneath fills,

• Insufficient geotechnical investigation and oversight: Repeated studies call out limited site investigations, complacent assumptions about soil strength and lack of independent peer review for high-risk hillside works. 

9) Institutional/Regulatory Pattern

After each major failure there were reviews, task-forces and recommendations but published audits (and later events) suggest incomplete implementation, fragmented agency responsibilities and enforcement gaps (per Malaysian Bar Task Force and academic reviews).

10) Quick engineering implications/actions takes

• Treat the whole Bukit Antarabangsa/Taman Hillview area as high-risk: require full geotechnical reinvestigations and monitoring for any new works,

• Inspect and rehabilitate all drainage/diversion conduits: ensure positive discharge away from slopes,

• Replace or underpin weak retaining systems and replace loose fill with engineered solutions (anchors, deep piles, drained retaining systems),

• Enforce independent peer review, maintenance bonds and continuous monitoring (piezometers, inclinometers, rainfall thresholds & alarm/evacuation triggers). 

TUGU NEGARA AND GARDENIA BREAD

HARD TALK

First, it was the Tugu Negara being criticized for not looking 'Asian enough,' and now ‘Gardenia bread’ is supposedly being used to win over Sabahans (it's a mockery) based on rumours about East Malaysians buying it in bulk when they travel west, which frankly is nobody’s business as they are Malaysian Citizen, not some illegal immigrants.

Are these really critical issues that deserve discussion in Parliament or the State Assembly?

Seriously, this is nonsense. You can do better than embarrassing your own leader like this.

The Volume Advantage: Why Competitive Pricing and High Turnover Beat High Margins in a Value-Driven Market - by Nik Zafri

A simple business scenario:

 The cost of one product is RM0.50.

• Seller A buys 1,000 units and resells them at RM1.00 (a 50% margin)
• Seller B buys 500 units and sells them at RM0.80 (a 30% margin).

Both offer the same product quality and service. However, within one week, A only manages to sell 100 units, while B sells all 500 units and continues receiving similar demand.

1. Lower Margin, Higher Volume Can Outperform Higher Margin, Lower Volume

• A sells at a higher profit per unit (RM0.50) but only manages to sell 100 units.
• B sells at a lower profit per unit (RM0.30) and manages to sell 500 units, fully clearing stock.

 In absolute profit terms:

• A’s profit: 100 units × RM0.50 = RM50
• B’s profit: 500 units × RM0.30 = RM150

So, B earns 3 times more profit despite a lower margin.

Lesson 1 - A business strategy cannot rely solely on high margins. Competitive pricing + high turnover often leads to better total profit.

2. The Market Dictates the Price - Not the Seller

Both products are identical in quality and service. Yet customers prefer the cheaper option.

Lesson 2 : Customers will gravitate to the price that feels fair and offers value, especially when comparing identical products. Pricing must align with what the market is willing to pay.

3. Accessibility and Affordability Expand Your Customer Base

A higher price reduces your reachable market. B’s lower price makes it accessible to more buyers, which increases volume.

Lesson 3 : Sometimes, the best approach is to reduce your margin but widen your reach.

4. Cash Flow Matters

• B sells all 500 units, turning stock into cash quickly.
• A sells slowly, locking capital in inventory.

Lesson 4 : High turnover improves cash flow, reduces risk of dead stock, and allows faster reinvestment.

5. Customer Behavior: Perception of Fairness and Trust

Even if quality and service are the same, customers may perceive A’s pricing as too high, creating resistance.

Lesson 5 : Customers are more likely to trust a price that aligns with their perception of value.

6. Long-Term Advantage - Repeat Customers

If B continues providing good value, customers remember the “fair price” and come back.

A risks losing customers permanently if perceived as overpriced.

7. Strategy Must Match Market Conditions

• A is using a premium pricing strategy in a market that behaves like a value-driven market.
• B is aligning with what the market wants.

Lesson 6 : Choose a strategy that fits the market, not the seller’s personal preference.

In short : A’s mistake is prioritizing profit margin instead of total profit and turnover. B wins because of competitive pricing, faster cash flow, and better alignment with customer expectations.

8. Understanding the Surroundings

What Seller B is doing reflects a deeper understanding of economic reality and customer psychology during a downturn.

i. B Recognizes Reduced Purchasing Power

In a slow or uncertain economy, customers:

• become more price-sensitive
• compare options more carefully
• cut back on non-essentials
• prefer lower-priced alternatives even if quality is the same

Seller B's pricing aligns with this behaviour, making it easier for customers to continue buying.

 

ii. B Reduces the Customer’s Financial Burden

By lowering margin and offering a fairer price:

• customers feel less “pain of paying”
• they can buy more or more frequently
• they perceive B as understanding and trustworthy

This builds loyalty - very valuable in tough times.

iii. B Helps Customers Regain Purchasing Power

When a seller provides value pricing:

• customers conserve money
• they can buy other necessities
• they feel more in control of their spending

This creates repeat demand because customers feel respected.

iv. Pricing Strategy Reflects Situational Awareness

• Seller A uses a premium-pricing mindset in a value-driven market.
• Seller B uses a market-aligned strategy, showing awareness of inflation, declining disposable income, cost-of-living pressures and competitive landscape

This awareness is a major advantage, especially when consumers are cautious.

v) B Gains Trust During Hard Times

Customers remember sellers who:

• remained affordable
• did not take advantage of the situation
• provided consistent value

This often results in long-term loyalty even after the economy improves.

In short : Yes - Seller B’s success strongly indicates that:

• B understands the economic downturn
• B empathizes with customers’ reduced purchasing power
• B adapts pricing to match real-world conditions

 

9. B Hires a Worker (10 sen/day) While A Sells Alone

a. B Invests in Leverage while A Relies Only on Himself

B understands that:

• One person alone can only sell so much,
• By hiring help, he increases capacity, reach, and speed.

Even though the worker is paid 10 sen per day, B trades a small cost for a large increase in sales volume.

A, however, is limited by time, physical ability, energy, customer reach

This is a classic difference between working IN the business vs working ON the business.

b. B Converts Cost into Growth

B’s commission cost is tiny compared to his profit:

• Total profit: RM150
• Worker cost (example: if 7 days × RM0.10): RM0.70
• Net profit: RM149.30

The worker cost is less than 1% of B’s earnings (to me, this is good trade-off)

This shows B understands scalability.

c. A Avoids Expenses but Also Avoids Growth

A tries to “save money” by doing it alone.

This is common among small businesses, but:

• Saving costs does not equal making profit.
• Doing everything alone slows the business.
• Opportunity cost becomes huge.

A’s choice actually costs him more because he misses out on potential sales.

d. B Creates Employment and Strengthens Community Trust

Hiring someone even for a small commission:

• builds goodwill

• creates local support

• strengthens reputation

• increases customer trust (“This seller is growing”)

Customers often prefer businesses that create jobs rather than solo traders who appear stagnant.

v) B Understands That Cash Flow Is King

The faster the stock clears:

the faster money returns, the faster B can reinvest, the faster B grows

Hiring help accelerates this cycle.

A, by relying on only himself, slows everything down.

vi. B Is Playing a Long-Term Game, A Is Stuck in Day-to-Day Survival

• B is building a system.

• A is building self-dependence only.

Systems win long-term.

In summary

Seller B shows understanding of:

• leverage
• business scaling
• cash flow management
• customer behaviour
• market environment
• productivity
• long-term business mindset

Seller A focuses on:

• saving costs
• doing it alone
• short-term thinking
• limited growth

CONCLUSION

The scenario of Seller A and Seller B decisively illustrates that a successful business strategy cannot rely solely on high margins. Seller Bs victory, earning triple the profit (RM150 vs. RM50) despite a lower margin, highlights the power of competitive pricing, high turnover, and strategic alignment with customer expectations. 

By recognizing reduced purchasing power in the market and prioritizing cash flow and accessibility , Seller B not only maximized absolute profit but also cultivated customer trust and loyalty by offering perceived fairness and value. Furthermore, Bs willingness to leverage a worker for a small cost demonstrates an understanding of scalability and long-term systems thinking over As focus on cost-saving and self-dependence. 

Ultimately, success comes from choosing a strategy that fits the market, not the sellers personal preference.

BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE : ESG IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Photo Credit : QHSEL Website

The construction industry is one of the world’s largest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, resource consumption, and waste generation. In today’s global business environment, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles are becoming essential for sustainable development, risk mitigation, and long-term value creation in construction projects.

1) Environmental Responsibility

Construction activities can have significant environmental impacts - energy consumption, carbon emissions, water usage, and soil disturbance. By adopting ESG practices, companies can implement measures:

• Using low-carbon/recycled construction materials.
• Implementing energy-efficient machinery/renewable energy sources on-site.
• Applying water management and reduction plans.
• Incorporating green building designs that minimize the carbon footprint.

Simulated Case Study: ABC Construction Sdn. Bhd. undertook a mid-sized residential project in Malaysia. Through ESG-aligned practices, the company opted for precast concrete elements to reduce material waste, used solar-powered lighting on-site, and established a strict water runoff management system. As a result, carbon emissions were reduced by an estimated 20%, and water usage dropped by 15% compared to traditional construction methods.

2) Social Responsibility

The ‘S’ in ESG emphasizes people - workers, communities, and stakeholders. 

Construction companies can: 

• Ensure worker safety and fair labor practices.
• Engage local communities to minimize social disruption.
• Promote diversity and inclusion in hiring practices.

In the ABC project, the company implemented robust occupational health and safety protocols, conducted monthly community engagement sessions, and trained local workers in new construction technologies. This strengthened community relations and improved employee morale.

3) Governance

Strong governance ensures transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct. 

Construction firms should:

• Maintain clear policies on anti-corruption and compliance.
• Implement project monitoring and reporting systems.
• Establish ESG performance KPIs linked to executive compensation.

ABC Construction adopted a digital reporting system to monitor ESG metrics in real-time, allowing the management team to track environmental targets, safety incidents, and supplier compliance. This transparency boosted investor confidence and positioned the company as a responsible market leader.

Conclusion

Integrating ESG principles into the construction industry is no longer optional - it is a strategic imperative. Companies that proactively embed ESG into their projects can reduce environmental impact, foster positive social outcomes, and enhance governance practices. The ABC Construction case demonstrates that ESG-aligned approaches are practical, measurable, and capable of delivering both financial and societal value.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AS MALAYSIA MODERNIZES

 

When we know who we are, we can walk into any global space without fear of losing ourselves.

THE COST OF PROGRESS - DEVELOPMENT VS ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IN MALAYSIA

Every nation dreams of progress. But progress without balance comes at a price and Malaysia is beginning to feel the cost - floods, recurring slope failures, and severe erosion events are not acts of nature alone, they are the echoes of our own choices. As the nation accelerates its infrastructure and urban expansion, environmental sustainability too often becomes a footnote, rather than a foundation.

1) When Development Turns Disruptive

Hill-cutting for highways, clearing forests for housing, and altering natural waterways for new industrial zones do have consequences even how good the risk assessment is. The soil no longer holds, the rivers overflow, and the cost of repairing damage exceeds what was saved in the first place.

Each disaster is a reminder - we are building faster than we are thinking.

2) ESG: Beyond a Corporate Buzzword

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles are not just for listed companies, they are the new language of accountability for every contractor, developer, and policymaker.

Projects that ignore ESG risk may potentially becoming liabilities - financially, socially, and politically. Responsible contracting must now mean assessing environmental impact, enforcing erosion control, and ensuring compliance is not just “paperwork,” but practice.

3) Responsible Contracting and Leadership

Governments and developers must demand accountability throughout the project chain. It’s not enough to meet deadlines or reduce costs, sustainability should be treated as a performance metric.

Tender evaluations should include environmental stewardship. Site supervision must prioritize ecological safety alongside technical compliance.

4) We Need Real Sustainable Progress

Malaysia doesn’t need to slow down, it needs to WISE up.

True progress doesn’t destroy what sustains us, it preserves it for the next generation. Every hill, river, and forest has value far beyond its immediate commercial worth.

If we continue to equate “development” with “deforestation,” we are not progressing, we are merely shifting the cost from our balance sheets to our children’s future.