No set standard for quality of life<\/p>\n
By Inge Komardjaja and Harald Leisch<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): The second international conference on Quality
\nof Life in Cities, held in Singapore from March 8 to 10,
\nintensively discussed the socioeconomic and physical aspects that
\nconstitute the quality of life of citizens. Most of the 100
\nparticipants were from developed countries.<\/p>\n
Quality of life may be more relevant to people who have passed
\nthe biological fulfillment of food, shelter and clothes.
\nNonetheless, quality of life is also meaningful for less
\ndeveloped people, bearing in mind that the different
\nsocioeconomic and geographic conditions of the contrasting
\ncountries result in entirely different interpretations of
\nindicators of quality of life.<\/p>\n
Not one concept of quality of life can be applied worldwide,
\nand even not within a country or a community.<\/p>\n
When talking about quality of life, it is commonplace to use
\nthe Western notion of the phrase, which in Indonesia might be
\napplicable to some people in the middle income and higher
\nbrackets, but certainly not for the population in general.<\/p>\n
In general, quality of life is the visible progress that
\nfollows a person's phase of life. It implies that people are
\nnever satisfied with what they already have, which shows that
\nlife is dynamic.<\/p>\n
People become stagnant when they don't have the resources and
\nare ignorant of the means to improve their quality of life. To
\nknow the extent of people's progress in life, indicators have
\nbeen developed to measure the objective and subjective aspects of
\nquality of life.<\/p>\n
The objective aspects are tangible and include the country's
\nor city's economic growth, income, employment, housing,
\ntransport, education, health care, public health, public safety,
\nsolid waste and political participation.<\/p>\n
The subjective aspect of quality of life relates to a person's
\nhappiness. Happiness could be defined as a state in human life
\nwhere one does not suffer from a significant loss, such as work,
\nbelongings, loved ones and human rights.<\/p>\n
But happiness, and accordingly the subjective quality of life,
\nalso depends on the wishes of a person and his or her perception
\nof the personal environment.<\/p>\n
Some people might dream of a big house; for others clothes
\nmight be more important. Some might hope to have a good
\neducation, while others might be happy if they did not have to
\nwork more than was necessary to cover the cost of living.<\/p>\n
One might ask for a clean living environment; others might not
\nbe aware of the garbage on the street. Clearly, each individual
\nhas their own priority in making life worth living.<\/p>\n
Enhancing the quality of life is everybody's concern,
\nregardless of the social and economic situation of the person.<\/p>\n
The objective indicators of the quality of life, most of them
\nrelated to the material world, are quantifiable and hence can be
\ncompared to most countries, provided these indicators are
\nmeasured by using the same parameters.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the subjective indicator of personal well-
\nbeing or happiness is very individual and relative and thus not
\neasy to fathom or compare.<\/p>\n
Among less developed countries in Southeast Asia it would be
\npossible to compare the objective indicators and decide which
\ncountry has a higher quality of life.<\/p>\n
Through comparing indicators among countries, a government may
\nbecome motivated to have a better system of improving the quality
\nof the lives of its people.<\/p>\n
A comparison between developed and less developed countries
\nwill help to better understand the meaning of quality of life. In
\ndeveloped countries, where prime needs have been met, people
\nstrive for a higher level of contentment to satisfy their
\nspiritual and psychological ambitions.<\/p>\n
They focus on higher education, job satisfaction, hobbies,
\nleisure and art and hence demand appropriate infrastructures that
\nsupport their wishes.<\/p>\n
This is not so in poorer countries where many are living below
\nthe poverty line and where the means to survive is limited. Does
\nthis mean that those people have no quality of life?<\/p>\n
No, minor achievements, even the smallest improvements of
\ntheir living standards are part of the quality of their lives,
\nalthough on a lower level. Of course, people living below the
\npoverty line need assistance from the government, non-
\ngovernmental organizations (NGOs) and charity organizations.<\/p>\n
Most of these organizations and institutions have realized
\nthat the best way to support people from the low income bracket
\nis to develop the potential of self-help, known as mutual self-
\nhelp (gotong royong).<\/p>\n
This is not only an economic must, but it also contributes to
\na better quality of life. Their satisfaction will become higher
\nif they can see their own achievements rather than merely
\nreceiving some donations.<\/p>\n
Mutual self-help occurs when some people have similar needs,
\nso they can form a group to reach a goal. Mutual self-help, which
\nperhaps can be found only in rural areas of self-sufficient
\ncountries, is a great asset to quality of life in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
As Indonesia has still a long way to go to achieve the ideal
\nstandard of quality of life, to evaluate the people's quality of
\nlife on the basis of objective indicators is discouraged.<\/p>\n
Representing the quality of life of Indonesia in figures, as
\nan outcome of a set of given variables, would not be fair, as it
\nis already obvious that the nation is dealing with the present
\nsocial, political and economic problems.<\/p>\n
It seems more appropriate and worthwhile to look into the
\nsubjective experience of happiness. Despite setbacks, many
\nIndonesians are smiling -- as long as there are people around
\nthem. Accordingly, a strong community relationship to support
\neach other is highly relevant for the quality of life of less
\ndeveloped people. But in a developed society people's attitude
\nmight be different; they are happy if they have less contact with
\ntheir neighbors.<\/p>\n
This is all about different values and measurements. We have
\nto realize this difference and that comparing the quality of life
\nof different socioeconomic and political groups is not a matter
\nof better or worse. It's just different.<\/p>\n
Inge Komardjaja works at the Research Institute of Human
\nSettlement Technology at the Ministry of Settlement and Regional
\nDevelopment, Cileunyi in Bandung. Harald Leisch teaches at the
\nDepartment of Geography of the University of Bonn, Germany and is
\na Visiting Professor at Universitas Pelita Harapan in Lippo
\nKarawaci, Tangerang.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/no-set-standard-for-quality-of-life-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}