Page 1 of 6

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at

http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 03 Issue 01

January 2017

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 126

Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Low Income

Group in Kuala Lumpur’s Public Housing

Norizan Rameli1* Dani Salleh2 Mazlan Ismail3

1School of Government, College of Law, Government and International Studies

(COLGIS), University Utara Malaysia (UUM)

2,3Department of Planning and Property Development, School of Government (COLGIS),

University Utara Malaysia (UUM)

* E-mail of the corresponding author: norizanrameli@ymail.com

Abstract:

Public housing is a vital essence of survival for the

low income group in city. Although the public

housing are technically been provided to enhance

quality of life for the low income, there are still

several flaws that should be improved. Thus, the

socioeconomic factors of the public housing’s

residences must be refined towards the enhancement

of the public housing programmes as well as

strengthen the residence affordability. A number of

400 head household are chosen as the respondents

based on the stratified sampling technique according

to public housing zones in Kuala Lumpur. The

socioeconomic factors are defined which including

the household income, household expenditures, type

of employments, education levels, household size,

monthly payment for housing and savings. A detailed

socioeconomic factors would enable a long-term

policy planning which involved the integration from

vary ministry be well-organized towards the

assurance of the low income group to sustain

homeownership affordability in city.

Keywords

public housing, low income group, socioeconomic

characteristics, affordability, homeownership

1. Introduction

The public housing plays a vital role to ensure an

ongoing housing affordability for the low income

group in lives survival. The houses units offered in

the market are quite solid to provide sufficient needs

for the low income group which a majority of them

are facing affordability complications (Whitehead &

Scanlon, 2007). The high housing payment offered in

the market affected the affordability of low income

group due to their small monthly income (Winters &

Elsinga, 2008). Hence, the public housing is the best

alternative for the low income group to purchase or

rent houses in the lowest rate.

Besides of providing the houses as shelters, the

public housing is also important to increase

affordability level of the low income group financing

the non-housing expenditures such as foods,

transportation facilities, educations and health

treatments for ongoing lives. It is due a low rate of

housing payment enable the low income group to

spend a large portion of income for the other needs

(Luffman, 2006). This indicates that the low rate of

monthly payment allowed the low income group to

reduce their living expenses as well as providing

some space for family’s household consume the

residues income for giving the best education

services for their children as education is a long term

human capital investment which potentially gain

profits (Kutty, 2005).

The public housing is also known as transit houses

for the low income group. Hence, public housings

are functioned as the first step towards increasing

quality of life. Dwelling period with low rate should

be exerted wisely among the low income group to

obtain jobs and working experiences (Zhang, 2013).

Thus, public housing tenancies in United Kingdom

left the public housing units after facing economic

stability such as stable employment and best income.

The stability in employment will increase

homeownership affordability until the household is

competent to afford housing in markets and

simultaneously improve life quality (Clarke & Monk,

2011).

Nevertheless, the initial importance of public

housing to help the low income group who is facing

various financial difficulties are always be given

prior attention. This is a concerning affordability

issues which are crucial in public housing rather than

the private housing. Evidently, the large number of

public housing dwellers in Ireland utilized over 30%

of the income for monthly payment comparing

private housing dwellers (Winters & Elsinga, 2008).

Therefore, the effort to tackle the housing

affordability of the low income group in the public

housings should be involving precise non-housing

Page 2 of 6

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at

http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 03 Issue 01

January 2017

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 127

cost as the basic reference for any programmes to

improve their homeownership affordability.

Moreover, the importance of public housing as one

of the instruments to enhance the affordability

amongst the low income group is likely to be

prominent during the economic crisis. This is due

incapability of the markets to provide houses for

them during the crisis, causing the escalation demand

of public housing goes globalized in the European

countries (Schwartz 2011). The importance of public

housing must be harmonized together with the

allotment of subsidy and government’s intervention

to prevent homeownership affordability issue

becomes critical.

Additionally, the public housing provided by the

authorities has its importance to give a chance for the

low income group in accessing housing with the

lowest rate particularly in the urban areas. This is

vital for the low income group access houses near the

workplaces because their contributions are needed in

urban industrial such as the hotel sector in Sydney

city. The high cost of houses in the urban areas

causes the low income group to live far away from

their workplaces. A long journey will likely intensify

transportation costs, time consuming from home to

work could impact their work performances and

family relationship. Furthermore, the uncertainty

working hours in hotel sector also disrupted

employee safety as they had to go to work early in

the morning and midnight especially the women

(Yates & Gabriel, 2006). Thus, the provision of

public housing in urban areas is vital to ensure the

low income group could persistently contributes in

urban industrials and giving positive impact in

economy growth despite preserving social

relationships and household safety.

Therefore, this research identifies the socioeconomic

backgrounds of the low income group living in Kuala

Lumpur public housing. It is because the

socioeconomic factors or demography significantly

affects the future housing demand and played an

important role to enhance the nation homeownership

rate (Belsky, 2009). Besides, the past research also

suggested the socioeconomic factors or demography

was taken in this complex homeownership issue

(Tan, 2007).

2. Methodology

Kuala Lumpur is a metropolitan city in Malaysia

with a rapid growth in urban population and

economic transformation. This city is known as the

center of culture and economy due to its position and

status as the capital and primate city. Kuala Lumpur

is also crowned as the Alpha world city, and the only

global city in Malaysia based on the Globalization

and World Cities Studies Group and Network

(GaWC) (Junaidi Awang Besar, Rosmadi Fauzi &

Amir Saifude Ghazali, 2012). Hence, the increasing

population in the city is continuously escalating

along with the city's population growth in Peninsular

Malaysia at approximately six millions from 2010

until 2020 especially in Greater Kuala Lumpur

(Economic Planning Unit, 2010).

The rapid revolution in Kuala Lumpur encourages

the necessity to ensure Kuala Lumpur to be a well- competed city to live in, work and recreation

activities. This necessity is bore by the Kuala

Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) as the agency under the

Ministry of Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing.

DBKL acts in vary scopes including the city

planning, constructions control, health treatments

and public sanitation, disposal and waste

management’s, environmental protection, the

maintenance of urban infrastructure, social and

economy, including the residential (DBKL, 2015).

The public housing management is functioned well

under the Housing Management & Community

Development Department (JPPPK). Despite

accommodating the entrance of renters into the

houses units, JPPPK also manages the houses units

selling and plays an important role for enhancing the

community in public housing areas. DBKL has

divided the housing management areas into four

different zones to ease the management operations of

public housing. The division according to certain

zones enables the housing management works

effectively and efficiently towards providing the best

service for residences of public housing. Zone 1

involves Bandar Tun Razak residential area, Sungai

Besi, Cheras and Bukit Jalil. Zone 2 includes

Kerinchi residential area, (Lembah Pantai, Jalan

Puchong) Pantai Dalam to Bukit Kiara. Zone 3

includes residential area around Sentul, Jalan Tun

Razak to Jinjang Utara (Kepong, Jalan Ipoh) and

Selatan. Zone 4 includes the residential around

Setapak, Wangsa Maju, Gombak and Datuk

Keramat. Besides of managing and maintaining

public housings, the zone management also

systematizes social agenda in respective residential

areas (DBKL, 2015).

The population covered entirely the four residential

zones in Kuala Lumpur. The total population is the

numbers of rental-status units which had been sold to

the current residences are 9287 units including public

housing in Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3 and Zone 4. Zone

1 includes PA Seri Sabah 3A, PA Seri Sabah 3B, PA

Seri Labuan and PA Seri Kota. Zone 2 includes PA

Bukit Kerinchi 1A, Zone 3 includes PA Seri

Kelantan, PA Seri Perak, PA Seri Pangkor and PA

Seri Negeri Sembilan. Zone 4 includes PA Desa

Whoops!
There was a problem loading this page. Retrying...

Page 3 of 6

Journal for Studies in Management and Planning

Available at

http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/

ISSN: 2395-0463

Volume 03 Issue 01

January 2017

Available online: http://edupediapublications.org/journals/index.php/JSMaP/ P a g e | 128

Rejang, PA Wangsa Maju R10 and PA Setapak Jaya

1A. However, PA Negeri Sembilan in Zone 3 and

PA Setapak Jaya 1A in Zone 4 are not included in

the total population because the residential areas

involved in the redevelopment area planning.

Therefore, the selling units in the residential area

have to end. The process of selling public housing

units which is launched on 2009 is still on progress

until now. The selling units are according to the

ability and decisions from the residences in public

housing units (DBKL, 2015).

Table 1: Public Housing Population

Zone Residential Area Units Blocks Levels

Zone

1

PA Seri Sabah

3A 816 4 17

PA Seri Sabah

3B

1020 5 17

PA Seri Labuan 640 5 4

PA Seri Kota 1224 6 17

Zone

2

PA Bukit

Kerinchi 1A

256 1 16

Zone

3

PA Seri

Kelantan

791 3 17

PA Seri Perak 1428 7 17

PA Seri Pangkor

1

64 2 5

Zone

4

PA Desa Rejang 2568 12 17

PA Wangsa

Maju R1

290 7 4

PA Wangsa

Maju R10

190 5 4

Total unit 9287

Source: DBKL, 2015

Due to the different sizes of zones, the samples

selection is stratified according to the zoning sizes.

Thus, the number of samples in zone 1 is (159 units),

zone 2 (12 units), zone 3 (98 units) and zone 4 (131

units) to achieve a total samples of 400 units. The

400 unit’s means 400 household head are chosen to

be the respondents representing a public housing

unit. The PA Seri Kota is selected as zone 1, PA

Bukit Kerinchi 1A as zone 2, PA Seri Perak as Zone

3 and PA Desa Rejang as zone 4. The chosen areas

have the highest public housing units to represent

certain zones (DBKL, 2015). After the distributions

of the questionnaires, only 365 forms are filled in

completely which makes the total selected samples

are 365 respondents.

3. Result and Discussion

Majority of the respondents, 73% are men whereas

27% respondents are women. According to the types

of races, 76.4% are Malay, Indian with 16% and

Chinese as the least ones by only 7.6%. According to

the categorized age range, 41.3% aged 51 to 60 years

old, followed by respondents in the age 61 to 70

years old by 21.1%. The age group between 41 to 50

years old is 18%, 31 to 40 years old age group is

10.4%, below 30s is 5.1% and over 71 years old is

4.2%. Based on the married status, majority of the

respondents are married which is 89.3%, 9.3% of

respondents are widows, 1.1% respondents are

widowers and only 0.3% is single (Table 2).

Table 2: Head of households backgrounds

66.6% which is over half of the respondents are

above 50 years old. This is possibly because of the

respondents are initially tenants which had been

offered to buy the rental units. The bids are

encouraged by the government’s action to sell houses

units to the current tenants. For the respondents who

aged below 40 years old, there are some of them who

take over the function of head household due to their

parent’s illnesses and incapable to work. These

respondents are considered as the second generation

homeowner of public housing. There are second

generations having own families and live with their

parents in the public housing units. Although this

research focuses on the household head which is the

first generation as the respondents, due to the age

factor, the children of household head who live

together and contribute to the household income are

also be considered as household head.

Majority of the household head, 73% are men acted

as the backbone of the family, whereas 27%

household head are women due to the death of

spouse, divorced or husband’s disability to work

which forced income earning is on the wife’s

responsibilities. Based on the marriage status,

married respondents mostly are either in marriage,

widowers or widows. The marriage status is

equivalent with the terms of homeownership or lease

Profile Category Respondents Percentages

Gender

Men

Women

Total

260

96

356

73.0

27.0

100

Race

Malay

Chinese

Indian

Total

272

27

57

356

76.4

7.6

16.0

100

Age

Below30years old

31 to 40 years old

41 to 50 years old

51 to 60 years old

61 to 70 years old

Over 71 years old

Total

18

37

64

147

75

15

356

5.1

10.4

18.0

41.3

21.1

4.2

100

Status

Single

Married

Widower

Widow

Total

1

318

4

33

356

0.3

89.3

1.1

9.3

100