*2.2. Governance Practices and Citizen Responsibilities*

The "citizen-centric, people-centered, or citizen-oriented" approach, which was viewed as an "inclusive" approach to sustainable development [40], has a long history in the national urban sustainable development policy of developed and developing countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Singapore, China, India, Pakistan, and Malaysia, along with cities, such as New York, London, Barcelona, and Bilbao [41–44]. Nonetheless, the policy was frequently regarded as the "ends" of governance strategy and was used as a rhetoric term referring to the ideal state of citizens' needs fulfillment, but the policy was not utilized in the dialectical thinking of citizens' responsibilities or roles in contributing to the nation or the city.

In considering how citizens could contribute to smart governance, a participatory type of governance is necessary [45–49]. In other words, the decisions in government projects would have to be made with the full involvement of the beneficiaries, keeping in mind that any delays occurring as a result of the consultation process should be minimized [50,51]. Nevertheless, even the citizens' involvement in the consultation process is considered an act of tokenism [52], where the power of decision-making would not be truly delegated to the people [53].

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the challenges in building participatory governance are mounting. First, only the emphasis on technological corporate factors in smart governance has been criticized for failing to solve the issues concerning smart cities [10,26]. Beyond this, the human factor involved in the smart city program needs serious consideration [38,54] and is seen as a "critical intervention" in a dominant type of corporate smart city [55]. Second, the fundamental role that can be played by people remains vague, as citizens are often regarded as passive users whose opinions are not taken seriously [49,56,57].

Third, global development agendas, such as the New Urban Agenda (NUA) pioneered by the United Nations (UN), has lauded the importance of citizen involvement and inclusion to all parties [58,59]. Nonetheless, the current situation has been criticized by many parties regarding the fact that corporate smart cities are against the current global agenda and have often manipulated the issue of people's involvement and popularized social polarization [60–63]; furthermore, parties have also criticized the NUA framework and emphasized that smart cities would fail if the community refused to get involved [64]. Communities' refusal to participate is most likely due to a lack of understanding in terms of the involvement, type, or process contained in authentic engagement matters [65]. As such, [64] also suggested "dissensus" as a living indicator. This proposal is against the current practice of "building consensus," where the different opinions of the people should be considered, even if the consultation process is "painstaking."

In Malaysia, the planned development of smart cities, such as Cyberjaya, which is located within the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), is often criticized by scholars due to a lack of participatory governance [66–68]. On the other hand, existing planned development, such as Petaling Jaya City, is now integrated into the Smart Selangor Blueprint and faces challenges in terms of coordinating the people's role in the new smart city and Local Agenda 21 projects that were launched two decades ago [9]. The main challenge faced by both types of smart city governances in Malaysia is the lack of local context indicators for implementing the element of involvement and the people's role if there is an intention to develop toward citizen-centric city development.
