municipal solid waste management in malaysia ...

Zaini Sakawi, 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Solution for Sustainable Waste Management. ISSN 0126-2807 Volume 6, Number 1: 29-38, March, 2011 © T2011 Department of Environmental Engineering Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya & Indonesian Society of Sanitary and Environmental Engineers, Jakarta Open Access http://www.trisanita.org/jases

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Practical Case Study

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MALAYSIA: SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT ZAINI SAKAWI Earth Observation Centre, School of Social, Development and Environmental Studies Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia Phone + 603 89213623 Fax:+603 89213334, E-mail: [email protected] Received: 9th November 2010; Revised: 14th December 2010; Accepted: 21st December 2010

Abstract: This article discusses the present status of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in Malaysia. The basic situation in large municipalities in Malaysia is one in which available resources are not sufficient to provide adequate municipal services to either the main stream of the population, or to those residing in the slum settlements. Effective waste management is dependent upon achieving informed consensus amongst interested parties. The problem for data collection and planning is the lack of locally available trained personnel and the need for relevant data. Most universities and educational institution fails to offer curriculum in waste management, and this neglect results in a serious lack of trained human resources necessary for the planning and implementation of waste management systems. Keywords: MSWM, privatisation of MSWM, integrated MSWM

INTRODUCTION The rate of waste generation in Malaysia is increasing, covering community activities such as commercial, institutional, industrial and markets. It is also related to the economic level of different sectors in the community such as squatters, low, medium and high class residential area. The rate varies according to the type of waste generators and land use. Depending on the economic status of the area, the per capita solid waste generation rate varies from 0.45 to 1.44 kilogram per capita per day [8]. Based on data produced by Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) [11], the national average rate estimated for year 1991 to 1993 was about 0.711 kilogram per capita per day. This average has been increased to 0.8 kilogram per capita

29 Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6 (1): 29-38.

Zaini Sakawi, 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Solution for Sustainable Waste Management.

per day between 1994 to 1999 and increased to 1.5 kilogram per capita per day in year 2000. For the year 2003, national average for waste generated per person is 4.5 kilogram per day [12]. Data on solid waste composition was mainly on the physical characteristics [9]. Statistics gathered by the government indicated that the average amount of organic wastes for high income areas like Petaling Jaya and Kuala Lumpur was approximately 48.32 percent. This is followed by paper (23.56 %), plastic and rubber (9.37 %), metal (5.93 %), wood (4.82 %), glass and ceramics (4.03 %) and textiles (3.97 %). Generally, waste generation and composition vary with the degree of affluence and urbanization. Both the quantity and composition of solid waste vary widely from day to day and also seasons of the year not only between countries, but also between neighbouring localities and between different types of properties within the same town. The handling and separation of wastes at the source is a critical step in waste management. The storage of waste at source used various types of bins such as a small bin (household), medium bin (communal bin) and large bin (hauled communal). The most used bins for residential areas are small bin. Also, the bins used are of various materials, such as metal, plastic, rubber, concrete bin, and cardboard boxes [16]. In the case of high-rise building, communal bins or central container are used. Waste collection activities are the most expensive activity in waste management systems. The cost of waste collection consists of two types: direct and indirect cost. Direct costs include all direct expenditure incurred in the management of solid waste in an area. It also includes the resources used in the administration, development and operations of waste management right from storage to collection, transportation and disposal. Conversely, indirect costs refer to external cost incurred in practising existing waste management systems. These costs include the environment damage cost of hazard storage, and collection disposal practices [16]. The efficiency of collection systems would have immediate impacts on the level of MSWM services in an area. Poor collection would affect public confidence in the services. The public is very sensitive to collection services. Most complaint received is related to the quality of collection. The frequency of collection varies from daily to three times a week. Everyday collection is normally practiced in city centres, commercial areas and public areas [17]. In the wider perspective, direct haulage from collection point to disposal sites without any intermediate treatment is the current practice in Malaysia. Some local authorities are at the beginning stage with the problem of getting suitable land for disposal sites as land is getting scare and there is a very high cost of land acquisition. The introduction of intermediate treatment facilities such as transfer stations, composting and incinerator plants may become alternative treatment of waste in the future. The government is also considering the various designs and mode of incineration process available in the market. One such process is the thermal gasification process. Consideration is particularly given to the technical and financial viability of the process to local conditions. Disposed of waste in Malaysia is totally to landfill. In 1988, there were 230 official dumping sites in Malaysia and about 49 sites are landfill. By the year 2002, there are 161 disposal sites are actively operated in Peninsular Malaysia. Most landfill in Malaysia were small scales operations with varying levels of design sophistication, and the majority of the sites were poorly managed [11,18]. Then, approximately 50 percent of the landfills are open dumps. Controlled tipping or sanitary landfill is likely to be practiced in municipal councils and the total is very small. The only private operated, engineered and modern sanitary landfill in the country which can be categorised as a class IV landfill sites under the landfill classification system is The Air Hitam Sanitary Landfill. The advanced features of the landfill include a proper liner system, gas ventilation systems and the most comprehensive leachate collection system. 30 Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6 (1): 29-38.


A general view related to waste management is important to understand the situation and the planning or approach to implement so as to obtain an efficient and effective MSWM in the future. The MSWM programme and the different levels of government taking part in the MSWM will follow this. Discussion will also focus on development of the MSWM. Also, integrated approach and further planning in the future will be discuss. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR MSWM In general, MSWM in Malaysia involves the participation of varies Government agencies from federal to state and down to local authorities. All of the government agencies involved with MSWM either directly or indirectly. Malaysia is governed as a parliamentary democracy with three tiers of government, namely the Federal Government, State government and Local authority. There are 14 states in Malaysia, and have 144 numbers of Local Authority in the country. The number of local authorities is included the Municipal Council, District Council, City Hall and Town Board. Under Federal Government, the administration of MSWM is under the purview of the MHLG. There have two units in this ministry involved directly with the MSWM, such as Local Government Department and Town and Country Planning Unit. The roles of Federal Government in MSWM are principally as an advisory and coordinating nature. As provided by the Constitution, the National Council of Local Government is an important vehicle that provides the avenue for consultation between the MHLG, from time to time, in the formulation of National Policies for the promotion, development and control of local authority. Another government agencies related to MSWM is Prime Ministry Department. There are several bodies which are under this department, such as Economic Planning Unit (EPU), Cabinet Division, Public Service Department (JPA), INTAN, Klang Valley Planning Section, Kuala Lumpur City Hall and Putrajaya Municipality. Another agencies involved indirectly is the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health, which involved the Engineering Services Department, Health Education Unit, Health Division, Public Health Institute, Manpower and Training Division. Ministry of Sciences, Technology and Environment also one of the active government agencies involved in waste management. Anywhere, the focus of the management more to Scheduled waste. There are two departments relatively active with waste management in this ministry, which is Department of Environment (DOE) and Department of Standards. In addition, Ministry of Rural Development and Ministry of Public Work also related to waste management indirectly. Followed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Land and Regional Department and Ministry of Education. State government is the second tier in Malaysian government administration. The responsibility of this state government is to guide and assist Local Authorities in strengthening their institutional and financial capabilities for MSWM. Conversely, the third tiers in the Malaysian Government level related to MSWM are Local Authority. Local Authority is the more powerful tier, which is directly engage with MSWM. The decision to determine whether MSW collection is implemented either by local authority or private contractor is becomes the local authority responsibility. Similarly decision to determination the area for MSW collection is based on the number of population and total of the tender offered. In Malaysia, there have seven City Halls, whereas Four City Halls is in Peninsular Malaysia, and Three City Halls in Sabah and Sarawak. Henceforth, for Municipal Council, 28 are in Peninsular Malaysia with the highest number in Selangor (6 Municipal councils), and 5 Municipal councils has found in Sabah and Sarawak. For



District council, there have 104 District councils, whereas 65 in Peninsular Malaysia and 39 in Sabah and Sarawak. MSWM PROGRAMME IN MALAYSIA Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia MHLG produced the Action Plan for a Beautiful and Clean Malaysia (ABC) document in 1988 [13]. This document discusses the guidelines and the procedures in implementing SWM programme in Malaysia. The document outlined 12 programmes with their underlying policies to improve the MSWM in its various fields. The components of this outline included: • Local authorities thought out the country should be strengthened to be able to establish efficient and effective systems of MSWM in their areas. • A regional approach for MSWM should be encouraged, whenever it is applicable to improve their economic and technical level. • All urban centres should prepare and implement MSWM plans extending into the future including periodical revisions. • All MSW generated in urban and semi-urban areas should be collected and disposed of adequately in such a manner that would not create public health, workers’ health and environmental problems and would be technically and financially viable. • The generator of waste who is supported by the Rural Environmental Programme of the MHLG should dispose of all municipal solid wastes generated in rural areas adequately. • Reduction of solid waste generation especially that of packaging wastes and household chemical wastes should be encouraged involving the producers and distributors of consumer goods as well as consumers themselves. • MSW should be treated as a resource and all efforts must be made to recycle and recover most of the materials that are presently burnt and buried. • MSWM services should be self-financing and an appropriate user charge or any other methods to attain the self-financing objective should be imposed on beneficiaries of the service. • The private sector should be encouraged to be contractors for MSW collection and disposal services. In addition, the national automobile industries and other related industries should be encouraged to produce locally all the vehicles and the equipment necessary for MSWM. • The public should be continuously educated on cleanliness and resources recovery through health and environmental education, cleanliness campaigns and strict enforcement of the anti-litter by-laws. • Land for MSWM disposal should be identified and reserved for the purpose. • Research and development about MSWM should be strengthened to cope with the everchanging environment. Privatisation of MSWM The privatisation of MSWM is to be done on National scale. The aim of privatisation is to improve the quality of service and to promote efficiency and provide better facilities. The goal of this privatisation is to take over the municipalities’ function in managing MSWM in an integrated National MSWM system that will be managed by the Federal Government [17].



Integrated MSWM The hierarchy of MSWM is an internationally accepted and practised concept in many countries through out the world especially in developed countries. For example, study by Cooper [4] and Clarke [5] discussed the concept is used as a guideline for planning modern MSWM facilities. Under full privatisation or concession period, contractors will roughly try to match the hierarchy of MSWM starting with waste minimisation, waste separation and recycling, waste processing such as incineration and composting and finally disposal to the landfill. This integrated strategy requires participation at all levels: government, industries, public and the waste management concessionaires [17]. THE PRIVATISATION ON MSWM In October 1994, the Malaysia Government initiated the privatisation of the country’s waste management system by issuing a call for proposals. The decision was made as part of the Vision 2020 initiative which focuses on having the country evolve into a fully industrialized nation by the year 2020 while protecting public health, environment and sustainable utilization of natural resources. HICOM Environmental Berhad is a joint partnership, which prepared a waste management privatisation proposal to the Government of Malaysia. In 1996, HICOM was among the four consortiums successful in obtaining a 20 years privatisation contract throughout East and West Malaysia. The concession territory awarded to the HICOM consortium included the Federal territory of Kuala Lumpur and the states of Selangor, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan. This territory represents 70 percent of the country’s waste management system. Other consortia awarded the country’s waste management system are Southern Waste Management Sdn.Bhd., which included Johor, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka; Northern Waste Industries Sdn.Bhd (Perak, Kedah, Penang, Perlis); and East Malaysia region was awarded by Eastern Waste Management Sdn. Bhd (Sabah and Sarawak). Currently, all the consortiums are in the midst of an interim period between the awarding of the concession and actual privatisation. Once the final concession agreement has been complete, the concession can then apply for any loans and proceed with their plans for privatisation implementation As the past system proved inadequate for the collection and disposal of waste, each concession is required to develop their own technologies and methods to better compensate for the rising levels of MSW. Each of the concessions is trying to gather their own information and ideas about how they specifically want to attend to the problems of their region. The rationale for privatisation of MSWM is based on the notion that technically inefficient [1]. Privatisation of MSWM is to be done on a national scale. The aim of privatisation is to improve the quality of service and promote efficiency and provide better facilities. The goal of this privatisation is to take over the municipalities function in managing MSW to an integrated National MSWM system that will be managed by the Federal Government [17]. The World Bank found that privatisation enhances efficiency, and that efficiency was closely linked to the involvement of management; more closely supervised and regulated privatised agencies were more efficient that those operated at a bureaucratic distance [15]. SOLUTION TO INTEGRATE MSWM Full privatisation of MSWM Since the Government of Malaysia issued an invitation to the private sector to tender for the privatisation of MSWM in the whole country of Malaysia in 1994, the current state of the 33 Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6 (1): 29-38.


privatisation system is still under interim agreement. During this period, few significant issues and problems persist were directly faced by the consortia. The implication of these issues and problems will directly influence the overall performance while implementing the MSWM system. The first important issue is the lack of funds. This is entirely different when the MSW system was under the management of municipalities. The municipalities usually have their own funds from the assessment tax to fund the MSWM service. In addition, the state and federal government would also fund municipalities through grants, loans and subsidies. The consortium also had to manage their own capital. The government no longer subsidies or provides loans to the consortium. It is not possible for the consortium to secure financing for capital expenditure because all waste activities are not covered by the management fees agreed upon by municipalities. The length of contract between municipalities and the consortia is on a yearly basis. A year is not a suitable duration for consideration to apply the bank loan. Thus, the consortium faced problems obtaining the loans from bank for financial needs. The consortiums do not have any reliable financial resource or recovery cost system such as direct billing. This is due to the payment service being directly paid to the municipalities (service arranger) by the consumer (service recipient). The payment system is through the yearly assessment tax. The consortiums only receive payment from the municipalities on a monthly basis based on the service provided. Late payment for service provided is also the main issue during the interim period. Due to this phenomenon, the consortium also faced the problem of paying the sub service provider. This phenomenon will affect worker performance and financial performance will affect both the subservice producer and the service provider. Generally, the problem existing during this interim period will have a negative effect on the MSW system. Basically, the implication of this situation causes the consortium to be unable to improve their facilities and equipment such as purchasing of landfill equipment, or purchase transfer truck, and collection vehicle. Currently, the consortium only maintains the existing management systems without making any changes particularly to improve facilities and old equipment, unless a few administration changes for example as done by Alam Flora Sendirian Berhad, such as rescheduling the private contractor under their supervision. Full privatisation also seems easier for the consortia to layout plans and plot a long-term program in order to improve the quality of services and efficiency of MSWM. Due to this, full privatisation is necessary to help the consortia to accumulate funds in forms of cost recovery system through user charge. The longer length of the contract will enable the consortia to applying for bank loans for the purpose of working capital, capital expenditure and investment in MSWM equipment and facilities, for example, purchasing vehicles for collection, maintenance facilities and investing in waste disposal facilities and equipment. Full privatisation also gives the opportunity to the consortia to have their own autonomy and be free to manage their own financial system and plan their programmes. Generally, full privatisation with financial autonomy and fixed financial resources can improve the quality of service, promote efficiency and fulfil the customer needs for a better MSWM system. Full privatisation with managerial autonomy can increase competitiveness through competitive tendering in determining the contractors as the service provider. Theoretically, this competitive tendering concept will reduce the cost of service, because the actual cost for MSWM service can be traced by the bidding proposal prepared by the contractors [1]. Creation of New Policy and Act for MSWM in Malaysia Currently, there is no national policy on MSWM. Nonetheless, the ABC has become the de facto guideline for MSWM activities by the State and Local Authorities. The ABC, however, was 34 Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6 (1): 29-38.


formulated on the basis that action plans would be executed by the local authorities with guidance from federal agencies. The success of the federal government privatisation programmes has shown that the private sector can play a key role in rejuvenating sectors for the economy, which have been retarded when under government control. With the increased participation of the private sector, through privatisation, various aspects of the ABC will require amendment. Furthermore, the creation of a new policy for MSWM in Malaysia is important as a part of the legislation approach to support an integrated approach for better MSWM. The objective to setting MSWM systems must be clear and should cover the whole of Malaysia. It should have the features of uniformity, cost-effectiveness, be environmentally sound and socially acceptable. The national MSWM policy should focus on the five R’s. Namely; reducing the production of waste, reusing items, recycling waste, recovering useable material or energy from waste, and residue management. The government of Malaysia should implement the legislation system relating to the MSW generation, collection, treatment, and disposal as mandatory. The laws that will be implementing should be implemented as mandatory and fines imposed should be honest and continuous. The implementation of the legislation by mandate is an effective approach to ensure that the MSWM system can be successfully implemented. For example, when the government of Malaysia through the MHLG launches the recycling campaign in 1993, there was no support from all groups (state government, local authorities and public) and this campaign failed to achieve the required objective. Recently, the same campaign was launched to involve all society’s level to take part for a second time. However, a campaign that is launched without the existence of enforces able law will not give a good result. The best example for the implementation of legislation approach is a study by the regional of Halifax, Nova Scotia [7]. With the existence of government action to ban materials such as glass, plastic, paper, organics and others to disposal sites, this will encourage the community to practice recycling and composting. When people start to take part in any activities related to recycling and composting, this will be very good strategy for Malaysia in future to decrease the total MSW generation to the disposal site. Recently, the new law related to management of MSW in Malaysia has not been gazetted. However, some of the fundamentals that this law needs to address are suggested. The objective of the MSW Act would be to consolidate and rationale laws relating to MSWM in Malaysia. MSW activities involve generating, storage, cleansing, collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal. There would also be a need to regulate privatised entities and educate the public. It is proposed that the Act encompass all of these activities. Then, the laws would also require the following activities to be licensed: • collection services for MSW • transportation of MSW • transfer station and operation • facilities for treatment of MSW and operating (composting and incineration) • facilities for the disposal of MSW and operation (landfill) • recycling and waste recovery activities • Competency certificates for key personal. The form of support required by the private contractors will entail a new regulatory structure driven at the federal level. This will give rise to the necessity of establishing a federal regulatory body under an act of parliament, and the role which has to be played by all levels government, including the local authorities. 35 Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6 (1): 29-38.


Option of Waste Management Hierarchy for MSWM in Malaysia The implementation of waste management hierarchy approach in developed country is very common. For example studies by Arner [2], Cooper [3-4], Clarke [5], Habitat [6] Hoorneg [10], and Thurgood [14] discussed the successful implementation of the waste management hierarchy for MSWM. The limitation of data and information for waste management hierarchy in Malaysia has placed a barrier for the Government to implement this approach. But for the long term planning and management, the Government should consider a combination of the various technologies to opt for an integrated approach. To indicate this approach, the Government should considering the option of waste management hierarchy. In this case, several options will be highlighted below: Option 1: Waste reduction Waste reduction can be achieved at several levels, such as reduction of per capita waste generation through public education and government policy initiatives. It can also be helped by source separation of recyclable materials and separate collection for recycling purposes. Option 2: Recycling. At present, there is no organised programme for recycling in Malaysia. Stakeholders are now working on their own programme and objective. Measures need to be taken to integrate the segregated efforts of the individual stakeholders into a single recycling programme. As such, measures have to be taken of both short-term and long-term perspectives. The aim for the shortterm measures shall be to mobilise the stakeholders towards active recyclable generators and enhance their participation. Long-term measures should aim toward increased diversion of waste for recycling, an efficient recyclable collection system and an organised end-market. Option 3: Biological treatment/composting Composting achieves the microbiological degradation of organic matter to produce a recycled organic product for use in agriculture, garden, park, etc. The technology of composting municipal waste is well established, and there are many detailed information and operation experiences. Even though the technology of composting MSW is well established, only a few of the refuse composting plants around the world are economically successful. The drawbacks commonly experienced with composting are its high cost and low value of the compost products. Subsequently, composting in Malaysia not been pursued as a solution to MSW disposal problems because of the following reasons. • The quality of product very much depends on the waste it is fed; therefore waste separation is very important. • A compost plant requires a large area. • There is possibility of secondary pollution caused by inclusion of heavy metal in waste. The product is thus limited for use in hotly-culture and not at all for agriculture. • There is a lack of suitable markets for compost and lack of economies of scale for quantities for the recyclable market. • Composting is not a complete solution since a landfill disposal would still be required for component of waste that is not suitable for composting. Option 4: Incineration. General observation indicates that incineration may be feasible where landfill is scarce and posing a threat to aquifer or very remote from the actual MSW generation centre. Modern incineration and flue gas cleaning technologies make waste incineration an environmentally 36 Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6 (1): 29-38.


acceptable option for waste treatment. It is possible to locate such plants even in densely populated areas. Incineration has played a role in MSWM for more than 5 years in many major Japanese, European and American cities. Despite high capital investment, expensive operation and maintenance cost as well as the need for environmental pollution measures caused by emissions, the advantages of incineration outweigh the disadvantages, such as: • Waste volume reduction is highly efficient. It can be reduce the original volume by 9-.95 percent. • Offensive odour is limited. • Hazardous and infectious materials are neutralized by combustion at high temperatures. • There is energy recovery. CONCLUSIONS From the beginning to the end of the MSWM chain makes one of the most problematic subjects in the scope of environmental quality. Beginning in our home and reaching the final destination (landfill) passing through collecting and transport operations and treatment processes, each one of the elements is important and sensitive technical systems deserve a detailed and correct analysis. Generally, MSWM problems are due to non-effective and improper handling. Some problems have reached critical level and need urgent action for planning, designing and implementation. These problems are closely related to the problems of adequate funds, manpower, management system and expertise. To obtain systematic and accurate data for each area for waste generation several procedures must be achieved. The collector must register and be under the control of the local authorities or else fully privatised. The management must come from one administrator (mono administrator). In this case, every local authorities or private collector can monitor how much waste will be collected in one day and source of waste. The effort to develop database for waste much easier, and effort to identify composition for waste much better. Since the waste management system was privatised, and four consortia were awarded a 20 years concession contract, it was hoped that privatisation was able to improve the quality of service and it’s efficient. Currently, the privatisation of the waste management system in Malaysia has not reached full privatisation. The system is still in an interim period, and is not running as expected due to some problems arising from the lack of funds, the length of the interim period, and the unavailability of financial resources. Problems faced by consortia have led to the inefficient operation of the waste management system. These problems affect future planning for waste management in Malaysia, and frustrate the implementation privatisation. The local authorities must implement and introduce mandatory specific guidelines or regulations for every private contractor registered with the municipalities. Using the integrated and centralised management, it is easy and systematic for local authorities to implement monitoring and make the effort to develop a database. Few of the private contractors are registered with the local authorities, but make a deal direct with the factory management itself. In future, factory must register the private contractor (waste collector) for waste collection at municipalities. This can also help the illegal dumping problem, which normally comes from unregistered private contractor or collection by the factory. Even the factory itself which provided the collection by their own management must register with the local authorities, and submit their report either monthly, every six months or annually regarding the tonnage of waste, composition, waste activities and recycling programme.



Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for financial support provided for this work under the research university grant UKM-GUP-ASPL-08-05-216 References 1. Teuku Afrizal and Hassan, M. N. 2001. Privatisation of solid waste management in Malaysia: Is full privatisation the answer to solid waste management issues. In Proceeding on National Seminar on Environmental Management 2001: Current development and future planning. UKM. Environmental Management Programme, Centre for Graduate Studies. 2. Arner, R. 1999. Northern Virginia: A model in integrated waste management. (http://www.nvpdc.state.va.us/arner/ra-wa1.htm). 3. Cooper. J. 1995. Integrated waste management option takes shape. Journal Materials Cycling Week. 165 (4). 10-11, 13. 4. Cooper. J. 1996. Integrated waste management in Vienna. Journal Waste Management., 16-17. 5. Clarke. M. J. 1993. Integrated municipal solid waste planning and decision-making in New York City: The citizen’s alternative plan. Journal Air and Waste Management. 43 (4) : 453-462. 6. Habitat II Conference. 1999. Integrated solid waste collection system in the City of Olongapo, Philipines. (http://www.hsd.ait.ac.th/bestprac/olongapo.htm). 7. Hickman, D. and Bauld, J. 1998. Waste management in Nova Scotia: Aggressive diversion in the Halifax Regional Municipality. Solid Waste and Recycling Magazine. 3 (3), 14. 8. Hassan, M.Nasir, Zulina Zakaria and Rakmi Abdul Rahman. 1998. Managing costs of urban pollution in Malaysia: The case of solid wastes. Netherland Geographical Studies: Looking at maps in the dark. Direction for Geographical Research in Land Management and Sustainable Development in Urban and Rural Environment of the Third World. Pg. 127-147. 9. Hassan, M.N. and Chong, T.L. 2000. Contemporary issues of MSWM in developing countries. Paper presented in Seminar on Environmental Indicators (river quality and solid waste). Sarawak. Malaysia. 4 April 2000. 10. Hoorneg, D. 1999. What a waste: solid waste management in Asia. United States of America: World Bank. 11. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). 2000. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Reports 2000. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. 12. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). 2003. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Reports 2002. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. 13. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG). 1988. Action Plan for a Beautiful and clean Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. 14. Thurgood, M. 1996. Waste management in Vancouver: Taking an integrated approach a step further. Journal of The Resource World Foundation Warmer Bulletin. 151 : 14-15. 15. Valauskas. E.J. 1998. A review of privatisation. INSPEL 33 (1). Pg. 1-9. 16. Zaini Sakawi and Gerrard, S. 2000. Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Issues, concepts and integrated approach. The 16th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management Proceeding. Philadelphia. USA. 10-13 Dis.2002. 17. Zaini Sakawi, Gerrard, S., Andy, P.Jones, and Kadaruddin Aiyub. 2002. Policy, challenges and future prospect of solid waste management in Malaysia. Proceeding on International Sustainable Development Research Conference. University of Manchester. 8-9 April 2002. 391-398. 18. Zaini Sakawi. 2003. Keberkesanan penswastaan sistem pengurusan sisa pepejal di Malaysia: Kajian kes terhadap Alam Flora Sendirian Berhad. Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan Pengurusan Persekitaran 2003. Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, UKM. 8-9 Julai 2003. M/surat: 742-750.
