ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The hearing process that is embedded in the development plan preparation. The involvement of the public is vital to influence planning decision making. Therefore, all the stakeholders, especially the public needs to understand the process of public participation and it is dynamic because public participation in the preparation of the local plan would influence the output produced in the granted property development. It makes no sense if development decisions do not consider public participation as the public is one of the stakeholders that will have to live with the planning decision outcomes. In Islam, collaborative planning is encouraged and emphasised to have better products and ensure the quality of the plan. Therefore, this study critically analyses the issues and problems that arise in the public hearing process and the relationship between act provision and Islamic working ethics and public participation values in development control. Using a qualitative approach adopted in this research to examines the importance of act provision and Islamic working ethics and analyses the implementation of public participation based on the issues and three Islamic points of view. The research found that Islamic working ethics and values are important in public participation in avoiding the ethical issues in the process and system transparency enhancement.
Abdullah, M. F., & Ariffin, I. (2006). Incorporating Sustainable Development Objectives into Development Plans. PLANNING MALAYSIA, 1(1).
Ahmad, F., Maidin, S. L., & Zainol, R. (2013). Malaysian development plan system: issues and problems, one decade after its reform (2001–2011). Noor, Norzailawati, Malaysian Development Plan System: Issues and Problems, One Decade after Its Reform (2001–2011)(February 2, 2015). Faizah Ahmad, Ibrahim Mohd, Syra Lawrance Maidin, Norzailawati Mohd Noor, Rosilawati Zainol, 2001–2011.
Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post?political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 89–103.
Ansari, M. I. (1994). Islamic perspectives on sustainable development. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 11(3), 394.
Backlund, P., Haikiö, L., Leino, H., & Kanninen, V. (2018). Bypassing publicity for getting things done: between informal and formal planning practices in Finland. Planning Practice & Research, 33(3), 309–325.
Backlund, P., & Mantysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice-the case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9(4), 333–350.
Baharom, A., & Yusof, I. M. (2001). GIS applications in development control process: Local government in Malaysia. Middle States Division of the Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting, Brookville, New York.
Campbell, H. (2012). ‘Planning ethics’ and rediscovering the idea of planning. Planning Theory, 11(4), 379–399.
Christiano, T. (2004). The authority of democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(3), 266–290.
Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. John Wiley & Sons.
Ebrahimi, M. (2017). Islamic Identity, Ethical Principles and Human Values. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(6), 325–336.
Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22.
Irajpour, A., Ghaljaei, F., & Alavi, M. (2014). Concept of Collaboration from the Islamic Perspective: The View Points for Health Providers. Journal of Religion and Health, 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-014-9942-z
Khan, N. A. (2001). Sustainable Development and Islamic Ethics: A Primer on the Conceptual Linkages. Journal of Islamic Administration, Vols, 4–5.
Li, T. H. Y., Ng, S. T., & Skitmore, M. (2012). Conflict or consensus: An investigation of stakeholder concerns during the participation process of major infrastructure and construction projects in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 36(2), 333–342.
Li, T. H. Y., Ng, S. T., & Skitmore, M. (2013). Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A fuzzy approach. Automation in Construction, 29, 123–135.
Maidin, A. J. (2011). Access to public participation in the land planning and environmental decision making process in Malaysia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(3), 148–164.
Mantysalo, R., Jarenko, K., Nilsson, K. L., & Saglie, I.-L. (2015). Legitimacy of informal strategic urban planning—Observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 349–366.
Metzger, J. (2011). Neither revolution, nor resignation:(re) democratizing contemporary planning praxis: a commentary on Allmendinger and Haughton’s “spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(2), 191–196.
Omar, D., & Leh, O. L. H. (2009). Malaysian development planning system: Kuala Lumpur structure plan and public participation. Asian Social Science, 5(3), 30–36.
Sager, T. (2009). Planners’ role: torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities. European Planning Studies, 17(1), 65–84.
Sarif, S., Yazid, H., Kamal, M., Roslan, M., Hashim, M., Aziz, M., & Salahuddin, Z. (2016). Strategic Planning from Islamic Perspective.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26936.14087
Sarkawi, A. A., Abdullah, A., & Dalih, N. M. (2016). The Concept of Sustainability From The Islamic Perspectives. International Journal of Business, Economics, and Law, 9(5), 112–116.
Wilkinson, C. (2011). Strategic navigation: in search of an adaptable mode of strategic spatial planning practice. Town Planning Review, 82(5), 595–614.
In-Text Citation: (Mohamad et al., 2022)
To Cite this Article: Mohamad, M. R., Talmizi, N. M., & Ali, N. E. H. (2022). The Collaborative Process in Local Plan Preparation: A Review on the Issues and Relationship with Islamic Working Ethics and Values. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(8), 558 – 568.
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non0-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode