When we talk of corporate social
responsibility, the first thing that comes to mind is the adoption of causes
close to the business or local communities it is based in. Cynics will say it
is for the avoidance of taxes, but others would say it is an avenue to
contribute to what is precious to the nation.
It can be as large as a commitment to
sustainable development which we see through Sime Darby sponsoring the
orangutan enclosure, or YTL's continuing contribution to the arts through the
Kuala Lumpur Performing Arts Centre, KLPAC.
In the case of Malaysia Resources Corporation
Bhd (MRCB), it involved hoarding up the 100 Quarters in Brickfields, building
up a pedestrian bridge to the Monorail station and even providing a shuttle
service and even porters at the temporary Penang Sentral transport hub.
And just launched last weekend, a 1Malaysia
library in the Pantai Dalam area.
Of course, there are smaller and more ominous
contributions such as upgrading suraus, contributing to mosque and other
religious buildings and even school funds, natural disaster donations and even
getting involved in the rebuilding efforts as well.
There are many examples of such even with
controversial entities such as with Yayasan 1MDB and Permata.
But how far should corporations go?
What I mean by this is: Where is the line to
where corporations take over the role of government in adopting communities to
the point of even supplying and maintaining amenities of an entire community?
One such question I would raise is with local
community security. Of course, we have fenced communities which are supported
by the members living in it. But what about auxiliary police or APs?
This has been a sore topic in Selangor
especially among the state assemblymen and women who want such a service provided
by local councils in an effort to reduce crime. And it has been a topic
discussed since 2008.
Personally it would be lovely to have more
officers available, but we must wonder to ourselves, why does it need to be
outside the Royal Malaysian Police?
Similarly, the initial issues of traffic
control is done by developers in the initial planning process to local council
authorities. That is the way it is supposed to work. However, when local
communities then go out and demand developers take over the role of local
councils, should they and must they?
Also, the maintenance of roadworks, even
local irrigation and drainage. We have a national level department for that as
well as states and even local councils, yet again. Yet, it goes back to the
developers to suddenly cater to the demand of the communities which believe
that local councils and even city halls have failed.
Sure, the building of a mall or even an
apartment complex should provide ample parking for its customers or residents,
but when did it become the duty of developers to address this issue for an
entire community under the authority of a local council?
Yes, if a developer were building up a new
township, it would be responsible for all its developments which will then be
maintained by the local councils. But for urban renewal projects, how far
should corporations go as part of CSR to advance a local agenda which should be
under the management of local councils and have fallen either into disrepair or
even bad mismanagement?
Because most of the time, the tussle between
local communities and developers is due to the local councils absence.
Personally, I am guessing this is where
communities and developers alike are willing to discuss and even negotiate for
the betterment of local institutions such as schools, libraries, even police
stations and even places of worship — all areas supposed to be managed by local
councils with funds doled out by the federal government.
It is one thing to get corporations to
“adopt” certain things in a community, but if it is tasked to take
responsibility of everything in the community — including the management of
amenities supposedly under the maintenance of local councils — then perhaps we
are all barking up the wrong tree.
— Hafidz Baharom
No comments:
Post a Comment