**4.4 Langkawi Tourism Blueprint 2011–2015**

The government, at all levels, the private sector, entrepreneurs, and the local populace have played essential roles as catalysts in the island's progression, with the federal government notably being the chief player from the very beginning [41]. For instance, the launching of the Langkawi Tourism Blueprint 2011–2015 should be a further catalyst to increase community capacity building strategies. Respondent 1 revealed that '*since the launch of Langkawi Tourism Blueprint 2011-2015, we are setting up a series of community development strategies that are imple‐ mented by the Community Development Unit (UPK)*'*.* In line with the blueprint, '*we are currently drafting a Management Proposal for Langkawi Geopark and one of the elements called "SEMANGAT‐ KAWI" which is to encourage local involvement in tourism industry*', as proposed by respondent 5 from LADA Geopark Division. The implementation of the blueprint is seen as a tool to boost the local economy and bring in more tourists to Langkawi. Respondent 18 further said, '*The RM5 billion worth of investments unveiled by the government to boost the economy of Langkawi is something everybody is excited about especially businessmen like us…several investors have already committed to build hotels and resorts.'* To the contrary, however, some respondents from NGOs and private companies have raised their concerns upon the implementation of the blueprint, about the issues of private control on free open beaches. Respondent 14 expressed the problem faced by local people when LADA came out with the blueprint:

'*LADA promised us that the Chenang Beach will be properly managed, but now what we see is environ‐ mental degradation by removing all of the trees and over-building of those hard-ware buildings. The developer just focuses on self-interest, big corporates are invited to Langkawi to set-up businesses, some of them build their properties on agricultural land, forcing out the rural communities who eventually lose their land. A lot of businesses are not going through proper channels; developers merely want to conduct their projects through fast track.*'

Respondent 14 agreed with this view, noting that, '*now we have various people from various countries and states working here and the local culture will slowly lose its identity.*' The various points of view showed that many decisions made by the developers and foreign investors do not fully consider the local interests and result in negative impacts that may eventually affect the local community's livelihoods. In some developing nations, balancing national and local priorities are always challenging in the present competitive economic and political circumstances [42]. Respondent 15 indicated his concern that '*although the top authorities who implement the blueprint have the right to have vision, with plans for Langkawi, but all the planning and strategies are decided by top-level authorities without involving local communities*'. Further concern was added by respondent 16 noting that '*before the launch of the Blueprint, LADA invited all the local communities to attend a talk whereby all the communities were asked to give suggestions and comments on the blueprint. However, issues we raised about the blueprint and questions we asked about public beaches were all not addressed*'.

Relating to the vision of the blueprint, a head of department (respondent 6) explained, '*We expect poverty and rate of illiteracy to be reduced to 0% by year 2015…we consider our programs to be very successful because you will hardly find poor people in Langkawi as there are a lot of employment opportunities. We are facing shortage of manpower because of the high economic growth.*' However, respondents 15 and 16 argued that '*there are still a lot of dropouts after Form 3 in Langkawi and they are hardly involved in the tourism industry.*' Respondent 11 stated that, '*for the blueprint, I* *think that not all the community are ready to accept the changes and transformation, and overdevelop‐ ment might cause UNESCO to revoke Langkawi Geopark's World Heritage Status when it faces the second audit by UNESCO in the coming 2015*'*.* Moreover, respondent 14 rightly stated that, '*the blueprint prints a good picture but it is too idealistic, it shows the best picture but still on the paper only. The blueprint needs to take account the local view, not just political view.*' Thus, local com‐ munities in Langkawi hope that '*this iconic blueprint will not degenerate into "white elephant projects" because of its poor design and ill-defined criteria of success*', as opined by respondent 14.

The perspectives of related stakeholders imply that the implementation of Langkawi Tourism Blueprint 2011–2015 may not fully meet the policymakers' expectations. Evidences can be traced from the feedback of some respondents regarding the negative impacts of the Langkawi blueprint which need to be properly considered. Since 1957, Malaysia has been maintaining a top-down system of governance until today. Most of the time, the decision making processes can be dominated by external consultants, government staffs, and development or aid agency personnel, whose knowledge of both the proposed development and of the decision-making process gives them an advantage over the local residents [43]. For instance, top-down gover‐ nance with one-way communication will only result in the local communities bearing the negative consequences brought about by the over-development in Langkawi.
