Malaysian Townplan Journal 4

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular MalaysiaMinistry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia

FDTCP January 2006: Malaysian Townplan. Copyright © 2006 by the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia. All Rights Reserved. No part of this journal may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any other means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing of the publisher. ISSN 1675-7629. Published in Malaysia by the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia.

2 MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN

M A L A Y S I A N T O W N P L A N

This journal is a publication of the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia.

Jalan Cenderasari, 50646 Kuala Lumpur.Tel : 603 - 2699 2146 / 2691 5472Fax : 603 - 2693 3964Webpage : http://www.townplan.gov.myE-mail : [email protected]

A D V I S O R SDato’ Mohd. Fadzil Hj. Mohd. KhirDato’ Haji Zainul Ayob

C H I E F E D I T O RKamalruddin Shamsudin

C O O R D I N A T O RMohamed Jamil Ahmad

E D I T O R I A L B O A R DDr. Dolbani MijanMohd. Nasir ShaariWan Hassan Wan IsmailNorimah Md. DaliLilian Ho Yin ChanSanisah Shafi eNor Zaliza Mohd PuziChua Rhan SeeYong Chee KongSuraya Badaruddin

E D I T O R I A L S T A F FMohd Nasir KaminKhatijah Che EmbiNor Hasliza Rohan

E D I T O R I A L P O L I C YThe contents of this journal do not necessarily refl ect the views of the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning nor are they offi cial records. Manuscripts or articles submitted which do not conform to the conventions of the journal may be returned to the authors for revision. The Editorial Board will not take any responsibility for any information published in this journal for their authenticity.

M A L A Y S I A N T O W N P L A NJ A N U A R Y 2 0 0 6

EDITOR’S JOTTINGS 4

FEATURES

IS HISTORIC MELAKA READY FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING? 5

A TRIBUTE TO CHARLES READE : REDISTRIBUTION SCHEMES AND KUALA KUBU BARU

GARDEN CITY DESIGN (1921-1929) GARDEN CITY DESIGN (1921-1929) GARDEN CITY DESIGN (1921-1929) 19

A RESEARCH ON URBAN CONSERVATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN MALAYSIA IN MALAYSIA IN MALAYSIA 44

CULTURAL HERITAGE OF SOUTHEAST ASIA:PRESERVATION FOR WORLD RECOGNITION 52

PALAVER

IN HERITAGE WE TRUST IN HERITAGE WE TRUST IN HERITAGE WE TRUST 63

REVIEW

BOOKS: Editor’s Choice Editor’s Choice Editor’s Choice 67

UPDATES

PLANNING UPDATES 70

BLAST FROM THE PAST BLAST FROM THE PAST BLAST FROM THE PAST 76

04 CONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTS

3VOL. 03 / ISSUE 01 / JANUARY 2006

HISTORY AND HERITAGEThis issue pays homage to planning history and heritage. Whilst heritage has recently been resuscitated and given a new breath of life through the National Heritage Act, planning history has almost disappeared from planners’ vocabulary.

Three articles on historic preservation, conservation, and cultural heritage are featured. One of the articles, written by Dr. Amran Hamzah and Rosli Noor is about an assessment of tangible and intangible cultural heritage of Melaka. The commodifi cation of the cultural resources for tourism purposes and the inevitable confl icts against cultural heritage management efforts are highlighted. The authors portray Melaka as ‘very rich in her living multicultural heritage-mixed, yet not blended, as in a salad bowl of sorts that retain their individuality, but together produce their own delightful uniqueness’. Mechanism and procedures of cultural heritage management are given critical attention.

The issue of urban conservation within a community involvement framework is explored by Zainah Ibrahim. She dwells on the existence of structural weaknesses within the practice of community involvement in urban conservation projects and puts forward a number of key questions about ineffective community involvement, responsibilities, and processes. She suggests a critical re-evaluation of the whole process is warranted and an operational framework for community involvement be formulated.

In line with this year’s World Town Planning Day theme, Towards Liveable Cities–the ASEAN Way, Dr. A. Ghafar Ahmad puts before us the concepts of cultural heritage with special references to the Southeast Asian countries. Here cultural heritage tourism and its challenges are given a wider coverage. A number of areas needing further action and commitment from the government and all players in the cultural heritage arena against threats and pressure from rapid urbanisation is suggested.

Not forgetting the history of the nation’s town planning service, an article is written as a tribute to Charles Reade, the fi rst government town planner of the Federated Malay States (1921-1929). Reade’s replanning and redistribution method is revisited; many readers are probably not aware that such land readjustment method had already been practised by the planning department. Further, unless we choose to forget about history and planning contribution, readers are drawn to one of the best kept secrets of town planning: Kuala Kubu Baru, Malaya’s fi rst new town. The township, planned along the Garden City design principles–Reade’s enduring and lasting legacy to the planning service of this country and to the International Garden City movement–is given a memory lane treatment

Kamalruddin ShamsudinChief Editor

Time immemorial. Time destroys.Time is the essence where conservation is concerned. Great awareness is the answer.

Concept: Jamil Ahmad

Design: A&I Network

4

Edito

r’sJottings

MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN

KAMALRUDDIN [email protected]

Cover

Design

Photo: The Esplanade (Padang Pahlawan)during the British era.Source: National Archive Malaysia

ABSTRACTThe attempt to nominate Melaka into the World Heritage List was mooted initially in 1988 but it was not until 10 years later that the State government decided to make a formal nomination (together with Georgetown, Penang). Since then, Melaka’s conservation efforts have been under close scrutiny by UNESCO, NGOs and conservation activists. Melaka’s tangible cultural resources may not be spectacular but together with its intangible resources, such as multi-culturalism and racial diversity, they are worth preserving and presented to the world. At the height of its power, Melaka was considered as the Venice of the East, with 190,000 cosmopolitan inhabitants made up of 34 nationalities and 84 spoken languages. However, over-commercialism and the threat

posed by uncontrolled tourism development have been slowly eroding the cultural stock. This article will present the findings of a three-year programme aimed at preserving the cultural heritage of Melaka as a pilot project funded by UNESCO and the Nordic Heritage Centre. The article will, firstly, contain an assessment of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of Melaka. Subsequently, it will highlight the commodification of the cultural resources for tourism purposes and the inevitable conflicts. Finally, it will describe the response from the authorities in improving the mechanism/procedure used in cultural heritage management whilst maximising the socio-economic benefits of cultural tourism.

Feat

ures

IS HISTORIC MELAKA READY FOR WORLD HERITAGE LISTING?

1. AMRAN HAMZAH [email protected]

Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor

2. ROSLI HAJI [email protected]

Jabatan Warisan Negara, Kementerian Kebudayaan, Kesenian dan Warisan

VOL. 03 / ISSUE 01 / JANUARY 2006 5

1 2

INTRODUCTIONIn 1972, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC) was adopted to provide an internationally-recognised legal instrument for the protection of cultural and natural heritage sites of outstanding value to humanity. Coming into force in 1975, about 124 countries are now signatories of the convention which comes under the auspices of UNESCO. By 2004, there were altogether 788 sites inscribed into UNESCO’s World Heritage List, of which 611 were cultural sites, 154 natural sites and the remaining 23 were both cultural/natural sites (Hall and Piggin, 2003).

By committing to the convention, signatory countries are required to:• assist in the identification, protection, conservation, and preservation of World Heritage properties;• refrain from deliberate measures which might damage cultural or natural heritage; and • take appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for heritage identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation (Hall and Piggin, 2003).

To date, Malaysia has succeeded in getting two natural sites inscribed into the World Heritage List in 2002, namely Kinabalu Park in Sabah and Mulu National Park in Sarawak. This year, the Malaysian government is planning to nominate Melaka and Penang as a joint nomination representing cultural sites belonging to the grouping previously referred to as the Straits Settlement (together with Singapore who is not a signatory).

BENEFITS OF WORLD HERITAGE LISTINGHall and Piggin (2003: 208) argued that the World Heritage List is a form of branding whereby the benefits can be summarised as follows:• as a catalyst for raising awareness for heritage preservation;• this leads to improvement in the level of protection and conservation given to cultural properties; and

• financial (albeit nominal) and technical assistance from the World Heritage Committee for preservation efforts and developing educational materials.

Another real or perceived benefit of listing is the increase in tourist arrivals although promotion is still integral to the success of the site in attracting tourists (Shackley, 1998). Hall and Piggin (2003) reviewed the change in tourist arrivals at selected World Heritage Sites before and after listing, but while there were significant increases across the board, Hall and Piggin concluded that the increase in tourist arrivals at these popular tourist attractions was inevitable, with or without listing.

THE COMMITMENT PRIOR TO AND UPON LISTINGThe procedure for inscription is a lengthy and complex process. Essentially, a national government that intends to nominate a particular site for inscription is required to submit a dossier containing details such as:• the cultural significant/universal value of the nominated site.• the authenticity in terms of design, material and workmanship. • a management plan to provide an effective legal protection, management mechanism, visitor management, revenue capture mechanism, etc.

The World Heritage Committee will then take about a year and a half to process the application (Shackley, 1998) with technical advice from the International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Centre for Conservation in Rome (ICCROM) in the case of cultural sites, while the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) provides the technical expertise for natural sites. Politics also play an important role in the listing usually to assist or put pressure on governments to implement a management mechanism for the protection of sites that are facing serious threat from uncontrolled development or dereliction (Ritchter, 1999). The politics of heritage conservation also explains why the Portuguese community in Melaka is currently regarded and commodified as a unique

cultural resource even though their ancestors were first in a series of European countries to have colonised Melaka, having conquered it in 1511. It should be pointed out that World Heritage listing can also be withdrawn if the physical condition of a particular site deteriorates due to the lack of conservation effort, unabated pollution, uncontrolled development, etc. However, only warnings have been issued to particular sites in the past as de-listing will have serious political implications.

THE CASE OF MELAKABrief History and GeographyFounded in 1398, Melaka (Malacca) is the birthplace of modern Malaysia or ‘where it all began’ according to the tourist promotion tagline. As the famous ‘Emporium of the East’, Melaka used to attract merchants from all over the world at the height of the Melaka Sultanate. In 1511, Melaka fell to the Portuguese and was subsequently colonised by the Dutch and British, and to a lesser extent, the Japanese until Malaysia’s independence in 1957. Ironically, its long and chequered history is now considered as a lesson for racial tolerance and religious harmony.

In terms of land area, Melaka is the second smallest of the 13 states in Malaysia with a land mass of 165,481 ha. (Fig. 1). It has limited natural resources but is very rich in cultural heritage, notably the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of its diverse communities such as the Straits-born Chinese (Baba), Straits-born Indians (Chittys), Portuguese/ other Eurasians and the Malays/Indian Muslim/Indian Arab communities.

The historic core or conservation area coincides with the area defined by the Melaka Municipal (now City) Council (MBMB) as the ‘Conservation Zone 1’ in the Council’s Structure Plan and Local Plan. The conservation area covers 0.61 sq.km of city with 1,366 building lots and consists of the St. Paul’s Hill Civic Zone (Colonial Town/Former Fort City) which is also known as the ‘civic area’, and the old quarter. The two areas are bisected by the historic Melaka River. At the same time, the conservation area is also the major attraction for foreign and domestic tourists alike.

MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN6

Feat

ures

Figure 1: Location of Historical Sites in Melaka

Cheng Hoon Teng Temple

Kg. Kling Mosque

Christ Church

Sri Poyyatha VinayagarMoorti Temple

St. Paul Church

Reconstruction Sultan’s Palace

A’ Famosa

Clock Tower & Victoria Regina Fountain

Kg. Hulu Mosque

Independance Memorial

The Stadthuys

Cultural Museum

Figure 1: Location of Historical Sites in Melaka

Justification For InscriptionThe idea to nominate Melaka for inscription into the World Heritage List was suggested initially in 1988 but it was not followed by any formal nomination. It was not until 1998, during the UNESCO Conference on the Economics of Heritage Conservation, held in Penang and Melaka, that the idea was given fresh impetus upon the recommendation of the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia and the Pacific. Subsequently, the Federal Government submitted a tentative proposal for Melaka and Penang to be jointly nominated as cultural sites. The justification for nominating Melaka to be inscribed into the World Heritage List are as follows:

a. Statement of significanceBeing situated geographically between two great civilisations of the East (China) and West (India), and having been ruled at various periods by great civilisations of the Malays and Islam, Portuguese, Dutch, and British, Melaka is very rich in her living multicultural heritage, as depicted by its various religious and cultural practices of the society, the very

epitome of Melaka identity – mixed, yet not blended, as in a salad bowl of sorts that retain their individuality, but together produce their own delightful uniqueness. The living cultural heritage is reinforced by the existence of the urban morphology and architecture that symbolise various eastern and western styles which need to be continuously conserved and preserved.

b. Possible comparative analysisMelaka can be compared with Cochin in India and Galle in Sri Lanka because both cities were established as maritime kingdoms before being colonised by the Portuguese, Dutch and British. Other similar port cities are the World Heritage Cities of Hoi An, Viet Nam and Vigan, Philippines. Both cities were listed because of their strategic location along the spice trade route. However, Melaka is richer in her blend of cultural heritage and built environment.

c. AuthenticityThe authenticity of Melaka lies in its urban morphology. The Melaka Sultanate was built on Bukit Melaka or St. Paul’s Hill. This was replaced by

the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the British colonisers who continued to run their administration at the same locality. Whole and partial structures of buildings still stand on this core zone. Continuity of such built environment remains almost intact in the urban centre that dominates the areas around the estuary of and along the historic Melaka River, which mainly depict Anglo-Dutch, Straits Chinese, and Islamic architecture. As a living heritage city, some land along the shores of the Straits near the mouth of the Melaka River has been reclaimed to accommodate necessary development.

Another aspect of Melaka’s authenticity is its living heritage. The myriad of peoples; Malays, Chinese Peranakan, Indian, Chitty, Portuguese, Dutch, and other Eurasians who still live in the core and buffer zones still practise their unique traditions and customs usually carried out at their places of worship, such as Masjid Kampung Hulu (mosque), the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple, Christ Church, etc. Living culture also include festivals such as the ‘Id-al Fitr’, Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Christmas, etc.


Feat

ures

RESOURCE BRIEF DESCRIPTION EXISTING CONDITION

A Famosa Only remaining structure belonging to Portuguese period

Restored and most popular tourist attraction

Ruins of St. Paul’s Church Contains gravestones from Dutch period

Exterior walls still intact

Dutch cemetery Located away from tourist flow

Intact

Independence Memorial Houses exhibits related to proclamation of Malaysia’s independence in 1957

Well restored

Replica of Sultan’s Palace Reconstruction based on description in historical texts

Well maintained with exhibits depicting Melaka’s Sultanate and Malay culture

Esplanade (Padang Pahlawan) Esplanade and site for Light and Sound Show

Being converted into underground parking and shopping mall

Christ Church Protestant church built during Dutch era

Intact external and internal structures

Clock Tower and Victoria Regina Fountain

Most famous landmark together with A Famosa

Public square fronting clock around fountain often a buzz of tourist activities

The Stadthuys Administrative centre during Dutch period

Currently houses the Ethnography Museum

Cultural Museum, History Museum, Youth Museum, People’s Museum. Maritime Art Gallery

Former civic buildings converted into museums by PERZIM

People’s Museum currently closed for repair due to damage caused by fire

d. Criteria under which inscription is proposedCriteria no. i.Exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture and town planning.

“A living testimony to the multicultural heritage and tradition of Asia”. The town still maintains architecture of the various colonial periods of the 16th through the 20th centuries.

Criteria no. ii.Be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement.

“An eminent example of a historic city in East and Southeast Asia”. Melaka has been known since its foundation in the 14th century as the centre of trade from the East and West. Although the port no longer serve as the main centre for economic activities it still functions as a barter trading centre with Sumatra, Indonesia. The state is also becoming the hub for higher education, medical facilities and tourism. Obviously, heritage tourism is the single most important component of the tourism industry.

Criteria no. iii.Be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural technological ensemble, or landscape which illustrates a significant stage(s) in human history.

Melaka is an exceptionally intact and well preserved example of a traditional Asian trading town. Its architecture reflects the coming together of cultural elements from elsewhere in the Malay Archipelago and from India and China with those of Europe to create a unique culture and townscape without parallel anywhere in the East and Southeast Asia.

CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN MELAKA HISTORIC CITYEver since the Venice Charter was adopted in 1964, Cultural Heritage Management (CHM) efforts all over the world have been guided by conservation principles either formulated by ICOMOS or UNESCO (ICOMOS, 1978; UNESCO and Nordic World Heritage Office, 1999). In the same light, Melaka’s conservation efforts in the past have also been aligned towards the guiding principles formulated by both ICOMOS and UNESCO. Nonetheless, the actual effort in translating these principles into practice is fraud with constraints and difficulties. In essence, the difficulty in implementing an effective cultural heritage management programme for the historic core has been the Achilles heel in presenting a strong case for Melaka’s nomination.

Tangible Cultural ResourcesPrior to discussing the effectiveness of CHM in Melaka, it is imperative to highlight the cultural resources and assets within the historic core. Essentially, the tangible cultural resources can be found within the so-called civic area around St. Paul’s Hill comprising monuments and ruins left behind by the Portuguese, Dutch and British colonisers (Table 1a). Tangible cultural resources can also be found in the old quarter in the form of places of worship, Table 1a: Tangible Cultural Resources Within Civic Area - St. Paul’s Hill

MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN8

Feat

ures

RESOURCE BRIEF DESCRIPTION EXISTING CONDITION

Kg. Hulu Mosque Second oldest mosque in Melaka built in 1728 with Sumatran and Chinese influence

Intact and restored by JMA

Kg. Kling Mosque Third oldest mosque built in 1748 also containing Sumatran and Chinese influence.

Restored by JMA and contains mini exhibition of restoration work

Cheng Hoon Teng Temple Oldest Chinese temple in South-East Asia adorned with Chinese mythological paintings

Privately restored using artisans from China costing almost RM 2m.

Sri Vinayagar Moorthi Temple Oldest Indian (Chitty) temple in the country built in 1781

Intact and well-maintained by Chettiar priests

Hang Jebat Mausoleum One of the famous five Malay warriors during Melaka Sultanate

Restored and intact but often blocked by parked vehicles and dustbins

Hang Kasturi Mausoleum Another of the famous five Malay warriors. Mausoleum has mixed architectural style with prominent Indian influence.

Also regularly blocked by parked vehicles and dustbins.

Intangible Cultural ResourcesLately, intangible cultural resources such as Melaka’s unique ethnic mix, culture, food, etc. are also being equally promoted as Melaka’s cultural assets. The intangible cultural resources can be mainly found within the old quarter, which used to house the Dutch administrators, affluent Babas and a mixture of Javanese, Indian-Malays, Arab-Malays, Chittys (Straits-born Indians), etc. As a former world class entreport, Melaka is rich in history and heritage, but its complex history is often dwarfed by the heavy promotion of its tangible cultural resources such as A Famosa and the Stadthuys. The fact that Melaka used to accommodate 190,000 people belonging to 62 different races, speaking 84 different languages (Muhammad Yusoff Hashim, 1992) is rarely conveyed let alone interpreted in an informative and entertaining manner.

Another important component of the intangible cultural resources is the traditional trade comprising blacksmiths, coffin makers, furniture makers, bound feet shoemakers, Chinese kopitiams (coffee shops), etc. These traditional trades used to be the focus of community life in the bygone era but most of them have been replaced by tourism-related outlets. Finally, religious and cultural rituals are still being practised by the different communities although rituals associated with the Chinese community are more predominant in the historic core. This is due to the fact that the other major communities have been relocated to specific enclaves around the urban fringe such as Gajah Berang (Chitty community), Kampung Morten (Malays), and Ujong Pasir (Portuguese Community).

As a former world class entreport, Melaka is rich in history and heritage, but its complex history is often dwarfed by the heavy promotion of its tangible cultural resources such as A Famosa and the Stadthuys.

Table 1b: Tangible Cultural Resources Within Old Quarter


Feat

ures

Cheng Hoon Teng Temple

Masjid Kg. Kling

Jetty at Melaka River

Stadthuys and Christ Church

Sri Poyyatha VinayagarMoorti Temple

Melaka River St. Paul Church

Reconstruction Sultan’s Palace

A’ Famosa

Clock Tower

Cultural Asset ManagersCarrying out its function according to the 1976 Antiquities Act, the Department of Museums and Antiquities (JMA) is the main cultural asset manager responsible for the preservation and maintenance of the historical monuments and sites within the civic area. The other important cultural asset manager is the Melaka Museums Corporation (PERZIM), which manages 15 of the museums within the State. Away from the civic area, the role and functions of the cultural asset managers are less clear. JMA is only responsible for the conservation and restoration of public buildings and given that most of the buildings within the old quarter are privately-owned, JMA does not have the power nor the financial resources to conserve the architecturally or culturally significant buildings. Thus, its efforts have been mainly focused on the restoration of religious buildings such as the Masjid Kg. Kling.

Technically speaking, PERZIM is empowered through the Preservation and Conservation of Cultural Heritage Enactment of Melaka, 1988 to undertake the preservation and management of private buildings.

However, PERZIM is limited by the lack of funds and its contribution towards the conservation of private buildings have been limited to the disbursement of launching grants for the repair of damaged roofs in Kg. Morten and the construction of mini museums at the Portuguese settlement at Ujong Pasir and the Chitty settlement at Gajah Berang. In principle, the National Heritage Act 2005 will empower the National Heritage Department (under the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage) to carry out building conservation as well as area wide conservation. This will enable the National Heritage Department to offer financial and technical assistance in the conservation and restoration of the private buildings within the old quarter.

Initially, the responsibility over managing new development within the municipality’s conservation area was in the hands of MBMB but the Preservation and Conservation of Cultural Heritage Enactment for the State of Melaka, 1988 conferred the power to administer and manage the cultural heritage in the conservation

area to PERZIM. Realising PERZIM’s limited resources as well as a reactive response to the growing public pressure through the media, this responsibility was ‘transferred back’ to MBMB in 2001 with the establishment of a Conservation Unit. Besides the government departments, the role of cultural asset managers notably within the old quarter is also assumed by a diverse group ranging from the various ethnic and religious associations such the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple Trust, the Baba and Nyonya Association, the Masjid Kg. Kling Mosque Committee, the various Chinese clan-based associations, the business lobby such as the Jonker Walk Committee, and NGOs such as Badan Warisan Malaysia and the Melaka Heritage Trust (MHT). Lately, a few of the so-called community-based cultural asset managers have been very vocal ever since the State government’s announcement to nominate Melaka into UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Thus, CHM in Melaka Historic City has been transformed into a potent force over a short period of time ‘to protect’ what is perceived to be the threat of over commercialism

TOURISM ATTRACTIONS WITHIN STUDY AREA

MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN10

Feat

ures

posed by the tourism ‘juggernaut’. The implications of this sudden transformation rather that of a steady evolution are summarised below:

i. Stewardship Without Financial ResourcesWhist the stewardship over the cultural assets within the civic area is firmly in the hands of JMA and PERZIM, the government’s role in the managing of cultural assets within the old quarter is limited. MBMB does not have the financial capacity to provide incentives for conservation work and despite recent efforts such as the establishment of a Conservation Unit and Municipal Conservation Committee, which are commendable, it is constrained by the lack of financial resources to beef up its Conservation Unit with professionals.

ii. Lack of Success in Managing Intangible Cultural ResourcesThe role of the government agencies as cultural asset managers is more successful in the conservation and restoration of tangible resources such as the historic monuments within the civic area. Meanwhile, the conservation and interpretation of intangible resources are often less inspiring as evident in PERZIM’s development of a Munshi Abdullah’s resource centre at Kg. Pali and a mini museum at the Portuguese settlement at Ujong Pasir. The presentation and interpretation materials at Munshi Abdullah’s resource centre are neither informative nor entertaining, and putting the exhibits in a private house only encourages antagonism between the occupants and visitors given that entrance is free of charge. Meanwhile, the mini museum at the Portuguese Square is hidden at the very end portion of the square, away from the pedestrian flow as well as suffering from structural damage (Amran Hamzah & Rosli Hj. Noor, 2002).

iii. Absentee Landlords, Lack of Local Organisation and Emergence of Local ElitesThe Rent Control Act has left the old quarter in a state of neglect with about 8 in every 10 buildings requiring major repair (JICA, 2002). More significantly, there is a big proportion of vacant properties and very few owner occupiers. This has resulted in a lack of social cohesion and without any form of local organisation and collective representation the role of cultural asset managers is assumed by local elites such as the various clan associations, business community (such as the Jonker Walk Committee and Chinese Chamber of Commerce) and temple trusts. Moreover, most of the tenants and underprivileged groups such as the traditional traders and tenants living on endowment land (tanah wakaf) are marginalised and are only concerned about their rising rentals.

iv. Absence of ‘Line of Communication’ and Rise in Self-appointed ‘Spokespersons’.The absence of a formal local community organisation or collective representation has hindered the establishment of a ‘line of communication’ between the residents and the relevant government agencies. This vacuum has given rise to the emergence of self-appointed ‘spokespersons’ for the local community, usually from the local elite or conservation activists from outside. Consequently, instead of discussing problems and issues with the relevant authorities through

the ‘proper channel’, grievances are expressed through the print and electronic media in the form of letters and interviews to the press and even to the UNESCO Regional Office in Bangkok.

v. Confusing Heritage With NostalgiaThe self-appointed ‘spokesperson’ as a cultural asset manager usually interprets the protection of cultural heritage in a limited manner and often associated with memories of his or her childhood. For instance, the closing down of a sundry shop in the neighbourhood or the threat to the survival of the blacksmiths along Jalan Tukang Besi are considered more important than the squalid living conditions among the tenants along Jalan Tukang Besi/Jalan Tukang Emas and the endowment land at Kg. Pali. Furthermore, Masjid Kg. Kling is currently regarded and commodified as a symbol of racial tolerance (together with Cheng Hoon Teng Temple and the Chitty Temple) notwithstanding the fact that the mosque suffers from the lack of congregation (qariah) to generate a living heritage so much so that Friday prayers is held alternately at Masjid Kg. Kling and Masjid Kg. Hulu.

vi. Tourism Regarded As Public Enemy Number OnePerhaps most importantly, the self-appointed cultural asset managers regard tourism with contempt. Tourism (and not uncontrolled development) is being blamed for causing traffic congestion, the rapid increase in souvenir shops and the loss in the number of Chinese coffee shops within the old quarter. This stance is in contrast with cultural asset managers from the public sector such as PERZIM which recognises the importance of tourism for Melaka and has allocated funds for the various communities to set up mini museums to attract cultural tourists.


Feat

ures

CULTURAL TOURISM WITHIN MELAKA HISTORIC CITYMelaka has always depended on its cultural heritage as its core tourism product, and despite expanding its range of tourism products to include 9 other components such as medical tourism, agro tourism and educational tourism, most tourists are attracted to the A Famosa, and the square surrounded by the Clock Tower, the Stadthuys and Christ Church. In 1999, Melaka attracted a total of 1.18 million tourists which increased to 4 million in 2004 (refer Table 2).

Although there is no data on the number of tourist arrivals into the historic core, it can be assumed that almost every visitation includes at least a day trip to the civic area. Among the cultural resources within the old quarter, Cheng Hoon Teng Temple is included in most of the trip itinerary of package tours, inducing a high volume of traffi c including tour coaches along the narrow streets leading to the famous temple. However, tourists are not taken to visit Masjid Kg. Kling and the Sri Vinayagar Moorthi Temple as they have “done a mosque visit (National Mosque) and an Indian temple (Batu Caves) in Kuala Lumpur”.(President of Melaka Tour Guides Association, 2002).

For a small state with limited resources, tourism is very important to the local economy. What makes it interesting but also a major source of confl ict is the fact that tourism shares the same cultural resources with the cultural asset managers. However, tourism commodifi es these resources in the form of tour packages that can be sold to tourists. Without a doubt, tourism is a legitimate industry which is able to maximise the potential of the cultural resources but without careful planning and management, adverse impacts are bound to occur at the expense of the cultural resources and local community. The nature of the tourism industry in Melaka and its associated problems are summarised below:

Category 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Domestic tourists 0.56 0.84 1.48 1.80 2.86 2.99

Foreign tourists 0.62 0.78 1.02 1.20 0.74 1.01

TOTAL 1.18 1.62 2.50 3.00 3.60 4.0

Table 2: Melaka Tourist Arrivals, 1999 – 2004 (in millions)

Source: Melaka Tourism Promotion Unit, 2004

ENTERTAINMENT CITY

RECREATION CITY

SHOPPING CITYi. Lack of Understanding on Tourist Urbanisation ProcessBurtenshaw et al. (1991) conceptualised the complex interrelationship between the facilities available in the city and the various types of users, and in doing so, highlighted the diffi culty in identifying a defi nitive categorisation of visitors according to the areas or urban facilities they visit. Page and Hall (2002) further explored the components and dynamics of the urban area by arguing that contemporary cities are experiencing the transformation from being centres for the production of goods to centres for consumption. This so-called tourist urbanisation process has led to the creation of cities for pleasure, in which the city can be zoned into the ‘nightlife city’, the ‘shopping city’, ‘sport in the city’, the ‘business city’, and the ‘capital city’.

Feat

ures


ENTERTAINMENT CITY

RECREATION CITY

SHOPPING CITY

Applying the above categorisation in the context of Melaka, a similar pattern can be seen in terms of the specialisation of parts of the city for specifi c functions. They are as follows:a. Historic city–the civic area, Melaka River and old quarterb. Entertainment/nightlife city–new development on reclaimed land called Mahkota Rayac. The shopping city–A shopping mall, Mahkota Parade soon to be complemented by the underground shopping at Dataran Pahlawan and the leisure shopping facilities encroaching into the old quarter.d. Administrative city–a new administrative centre developed at the city fringe, Ayer Keroh that will soon accommodate all the State government departments.e. Recreational city–the tourism/ recreational corridor from the city centre to Ayer Keroh.f. A possible medical city–the growth in the number of private hospitals (health/medical tourism) in Melaka has been phenomenal although there are not zoned together but dispersed in various sections of the city.

Another form of tourist urbanisation process taking place within the old quarter is the controversial Jonker Walk project, that is actually an attempt to create a Special Event tourism product. This weekend activity was started about 4 years ago involving the closure of Jalan Hang Jebat (Jonker Street) from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. The original intention was to allow traders to peddle handicrafts so as to create a night activity for tourists but Jonker Walk is now overwhelmed with food stalls. Jonker Walk has received a lot of criticism in the media mainly because it gives the appearance of just another Malaysian night market (pasar malam) but more than 60% of local residents and traders are in favour of the project (JICA/MPMBB, 2002). Another fl agship project recently completed is the Hang Tuah Mall project which involves the creation of a promenade along Jalan Hang Tuah with kiosks and retail outlets aimed at creating a street café ambiance. In addition, the Melaka River Rehabilitation Programme is currently being undertaken to transform the riverbank into a promenade of gardens. Also, the dockland is being redeveloped with the transformation

of an old warehouse into a Central Market-style development. Finally, the Melaka International Trade Centre (MITC) that is developed along the tourism corridor in Ayer Keroh is envisaged to be the premier MICE venue for the State of Melaka.

The above discussion has shown the magnitude of the spatial and economic transformation of Melaka Historic City into a ‘leisure setting’ (Page and Hall, 2003). Yet, this radical transformation has not been fully understood by city planners. Without a clear strategy to accommodate and manage the advent of tourism, the resulting confl ict between cultural heritage management and tourism is inevitable given the spread of tourism development into the historic core.

ii. Mismatch Between Tourism Demand and SupplyThe lack of research by both the tourism authorities and the tourism industry has contributed to the lack of understanding on the motivation and expectations of tourists leading to the wrong assumption that every type of tourist wants to visit the same cultural products. As a result, there is a mismatch between the different market segments and the tourist attractions being commodifi ed and sold to the tourists. For instance the street improvement project along Jalan Hang Jebat (Jonker Street) and Jalan Tokong–Jalan Tukang Emas–Jalan Tukang Besi has managed to attract a high volume of tourist fl ow to the old quarter but without well-defi ned

heritage/tourist trails and proper interpretation, mass tourists are often seen walking aimlessly along the new sidewalks without a clue of the history and the wealth of cultural resources within the old quarter.

iii. Lack of Data on Tourist TypologyCultural tourists have been divided into 3 types by Jansen-Verbeke (1997) namely the culturally-motivated tourist, the culturally-inspired tourists and culturally-attracted tourist. More recently, McKercher and du Cross (2002) have developed a 5-fold typology of cultural tourists, namely the purposeful cultural tourist, sightseeing cultural tourist, serendipitous cultural tourist, casual cultural tourist and incidental cultural tourist. If McKercher and du Cross’s typology is applied in the case of Melaka, it can be assumed that both the casual cultural tourist and incidental cultural tourist usually will achieve a high level of trip satisfaction by visiting the monuments within St. Paul’s Hill despite experiencing a shallow cultural experience given that their main motive for visiting the monuments is for leisure in the company of family members or friends. Thus the historical buildings are merely a backdrop for photo opportunity rather than a setting for a deep cultural experience. By the same token, a visit to Cheng Hoon Teng Temple would also be unnecessary as this type of tourists are not interested in the deeper cultural messages during their visit. However, since the temple is being promoted as a must-see attraction by both the authorities and industry, all the different types of tourists are taken there, creating traffi c congestion almost every weekend along Jalan Tokong.

Feat

ures


iv. Lack of Visitor ManagementTourists seek entertainment during their visit. This can be realised, for instance, by developing a purpose-built heritage theme park which can be constructed within the derelict warehouses by the jetty (Sg. Melaka river mouth). By doing so, a honey pot can be created to be able to absorb high visitation levels and at the same time offering mass tourists with a high quality tourist experience. More importantly, it will attract the souvenir shops and other mass tourism-related outlets to be housed within the heritage theme park, thus ‘rescuing’ the old quarter from being overwhelmed by trinket sellers.

v. Absence of Self Regulation by Tourism IndustryAlmost all the visits into Melaka are arranged by operators based in Singapore or Kuala Lumpur. Hence, it is diffi cult to control the use of guides, their training and attitude in terms of being respectful of local culture and sensitivities. Self-regulation is essential but the tourism industry also needs to understand the needs of the cultural asset managers before the message can be conveyed to the tour operators, guides, etc.

CONFLICT BETWEEN CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AND ITS IMPLICATIONSThe above discussion has highlighted the diffi cult task of achieving a balance between cultural heritage management and tourism. Nonetheless this problem is shared by most World Heritage Sites (Shackley, 1998). In Melaka, the so-called civic area receives the bulk of the tourist arrivals to the city but the area/cultural resources are robust enough to accommodate large groups of tourists given the absence of residents and the wide spaces in between the historic monuments. In contrast, the old quarter on the other side of the historic Melaka River is suffering from building obsolesces, absentee landlord and traffi c congestion along its narrow streets.

Currently, gentrifi cation is gradually taking place with the infl ux of artisans and art college graduates from Kuala Lumpur institutions, creating a form of artisan precinct within the old quarter. At the same time, less ‘authentic’ souvenir shops and street cafes have mushroomed which include a shop selling American Red Indian costumes. This has created a lot of discontentment from conservation activists which resulted in a form of ‘trial by media’ that went on for several months in 2001/2002. Upon hindsight, the ‘battle’ between conservation activists and the authorities over the real or perceived development threat on the historic core was propagated by the lack of understanding of the dynamics of contemporary urban economics facing the city and the failure to manage the advent of the urban tourism ‘juggernaut’.

The authorities were perceived as only interested in attracting a big number of tourists at the expense of Melaka unique cultural heritage. In truth, the Melaka State government and tourism authorities were merely exploiting the attractiveness and marketability of the historic attractions in the city. Unfortunately, the local planning authority did not regard the promotion and management of urban tourism as part of their core business. As a consequence, there was little effort in understanding the dynamics of urban tourism, let alone the formulation of visitor management strategies to minimise the detrimental impacts of tourism on the physical, economic, and social environment. To be fair, the State Government responded by implementing several reactive measures to show its commitment to heritage conservation as a prerequisite for listing.


Feat

ures

GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS IN RESOLVING CONFLICT BETWEEN CHM AND TOURISMNotwithstanding the negative reports in the local media, notably concerning the demolition of historical buildings in the old quarter, both the State government and local authority (MBMB) have made good progress in improving the management mechanism for conservation. The government’s efforts can be summarised as follows:

• improving the legal framework• establishment of conservation committees• establishment of conservation unit within local authority• funding of restoration projects• public education programmes• documentation exercise

Improving Legal FrameworkThis was carried out through the commissioning of studies to produce both statutory and non-statutory plans related to cultural heritage management in the historic core. The relevant studies are as follows:

• Melaka Structure Plan (Review) 2002 The review of the Structure Plan is required by Act 172. One of the current focus is on the strengthening of the policies related to conservation to consolidate Melaka’s image as a ‘Historical State’. Currently in the final stages of gazettement, the Structure Plan contains clear directions in terms of conservation within the study area.

• Action Plan for Conservation Within Melaka Historic City (2002) This action plan is commissioned by MPMBB and prepared by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). The aim of the plan is to provide detailed development control guidelines covering the conservation area and buffer zone as regards to conservation.

• Action Plan for Cultural Tourism Along Harmony Street (Jalan Tokong, Jalan Tukang Emas and Jalan Tukang Besi) (2001). This informal plan was prepared by UTM as part of UNESCO’s pilot project on cultural tourism. The action

plan was presented at a UNESCO- sponsored conference held in Lijiang, China in October 2002. Subsequently, the recommendations contained in this action plan have been incorporated in the Structure Plan review and Action Plan for Conservation within Melaka Historic City.

• The Study on the Improvement of Conservation in the Historical City of Melaka (2002) This study was funded by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) with the aim of preparing an action plan using a collaborative, bottom up approach to improve conservation efforts in the historic core. Subsequently, the flagship actions recommended by the study e.g. street improvement are being implemented with funding from the Federal Government.

Besides the preparation of statutory and non-statutory plans, Act 172 is also being amended to include stiffer penalty for demolition of historical buildings, establishment of conservation fund and provision for Structure Plans to designate Special Areas (for conservation).

Establishment of State Conservation Committee and City Conservation CommitteeAmong the reactive but notable measures carried out by the State and local authority were to establish a State Conservation Committee and a City Conservation Committee to oversee and monitor development within the conservation area. NGOs such as the Melaka Heritage Trust have been invited to sit these committees, which are supposed to act as watchdogs against the illegal demolition/improper restoration of historical buildings within the conservation area.

Establishment of Conservation Unit Within the Local Authority (MBMB)Meanwhile the establishment of the Conservation Unit within MBMB is another pragmatic effort that is supposed to assist the public sector, private sector and house owners on conservation. The Unit is headed by a conservation architect but it is restricted by the lack of financial resources and qualified personnel. Nonetheless, the recent upgrading

Act 172 is also being amended to include stiffer penalty for demolition of historical buildings


Feat

ures

Training and Public Education ProgrammesIn the past two years, the State Government and MBMB have carried out an extensive but low profi le public education programme to educate local professionals, heritage managers, and the general public on conservation matters. Such programmes were carried out in collaboration with Federal Government agencies such as the Department of Museums and Antiquities, donor agencies such as JICA, and NGOs like the Melaka Heritage Trust (MHT). In fact, MHT is being increasingly given a prominent role in conservation committees and as resource persons during public participation workshops and public dialogs.

Another form of public education and empowerment programme currently being implemented by MBMB is the Local Agenda 21 for the Historic Inner City. Based on the success of pilot projects elsewhere in the country, this programme will provide the avenue for active public participation in the decision making process. The likely focus of the programme will be on the management of tourism impacts, which is a highly pertinent issue. The Local Agenda 21 programme will fi t in nicely as a follow up to the JICA Study (2002), which achieved limited success in its consultative approach.

Documentation ExerciseFinally, a documentation exercise has been implemented by MBMB to record data such as building inventories, demographic and socio-economic profi le of the local residents and details of the vernacular architecture. Given that documentation is an important aspect of cultural heritage management, PERZIM has also carried out an inventory of cultural practices of the different communities in 2001 in collaboration with UTM as well as an inventory of traditional trade.

of the local authority to city status may result in the recruitment of more professionals to beef up the Unit, in line with the recommendations of the JICA Study (2002).

Funding of Building Restoration/Conservation ProjectsAlthough state governments/local authorities are not able to use income from tourism to fi nance local conservation efforts, it should be noted that the Federal Government, has in the past provided generous fi nancial assistance for the restoration of historic buildings classifi ed as national monuments. However, it should be noted that the restoration/conservation efforts carried out by the Federal Government through the Department of Museums and Antiquities were for building conservation of public buildings and not area conservation. Thus, the local planning authority does not have the fi nancial capacity to carry out large scale area conservation projects nor is it in the position to create incentives for home owners to repair/restore their buildings. Despite this, the Department of Local Government in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been trying very hard to convince the Federal Government to apportion half of the income collected through the sales and service tax to local authorities.

Besides the restoration projects undertaken by the Department of Museums and Antiquities, the Melaka State government and MBMB are also actively involved in funding restoration works. Currently, MBMB is supervising street improvement programmes along Jalan Hang Jebat (Jonker Street) and Jalan Tokong, based on the recommendations of the JICA Study. Funding for such programmes are provided by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Another prominent restoration project that is currently being implemented is the restoration of the Atlas Ice building along Jalan Hang Jebat. This is an adaptive reuse project that will, among others, provide business incubators for the skilled artisans to initiate their business.

‘forcing World Heritage Listing into the throat of the general public’.


Feat

ures

SOME REFLECTIONS AND THE WAY FORWARDThe above discussion has shown that the main focus of the Melaka State government’s efforts in improving conservation is in the form of strengthening the mechanism for the conservation of tangible cultural resources. The main aim of this approach is to curb the demolition of historical buildings which is seen as detrimental to Melaka’s quest for listing. In essence and as discussed earlier, these measures are reactive as well as curative in nature.

Three years later, it is imperative to review and take stock of the current situation especially in the light of the impending official nomination. By and large, several areas of concerns that require are identified, which are as follows:

Lack of Public Awareness and Knowledge About World Heritage ListingAs argued by Hall and Piggin (2003) the general public will support any attempt for listing not because of the potential economic return but due to the emotional attachment and pride in their heritage. In Melaka, a large section of the general public are not aware about the World Heritage, the State government’s aspiration and the conditions attached to the nomination. Of prime concern is the lack of awareness amongst investors and developers. Instead of nurturing the love for one’s heritage, the approach used in Melaka is like ‘forcing World Heritage Listing into the throat of the general public’. Therefore, it is not surprising for them to question the enforcement of strict development guidelines in a prime business area. Until the general public are aware of the pride that comes with the listing, the State’s government’s quest will not get their full support and commitment.

Difficulty in Identifying LocalsThe main reason for the lack of local representation and ‘line of communication’ as discussed earlier is the difficulty in identifying the ‘locals’ who should be represented in the plan making process. By and large, the historic core is made up of a transient population comprising absentee landlords, tenants, caretakers, artisans from outside, conservation activists, arty-farty types, etc. With the exception of the Chinese community

(including the Straits-born Chinese) the real ‘locals’ i.e. the Portuguese, Malays, Chittys are all living outside the historic core, within specific enclaves around the urban fringe. Therefore, the bond between the communities in Melaka is not in terms of place but rather by a common interest given that they are ‘aspatial communities’ (Richards and Hall, 2000:2). As such, the setting up of some form of residents association is imperative, which is Herculean task given the diverse mix and different agenda of each interest group.

Absence of Revenue Capture MechanismDespite the completion of two action plans that include some form of visitor management strategies (MPMBB/UTM, 2002; JICA/MPMBB, 2002), the proposals do not specifically recommend a revenue capture mechanism which would ensure that part of the income from tourism could be reinvested into building/area conservation. Such mechanism is already in place in historic cities/World Heritage Sites such as Hoi An, Vietnam (voucher system) and Bhaktaphur, Nepal (entrance fee). In the case of Malaysia, direct taxation from tourism in the form of the 10% sales tax and 5% service tax are directly channelled to the Federal Government’s coffers given that tourism is a Federal affair and responsibility. The only direct income from tourism that the Melaka State government is allowed to collect is the entrance fee to the 15 museums managed by the Melaka Museums Corporation (PERZIM). However, the income from the museums’ entrance fee is relatively small and is only able to fund one-off projects such the establishment of mini museums/galleries.

Although Melaka has received financial assistance for restoration/conservation efforts carried out by the Federal Government through the Department of Museums and Antiquities, it was for building conservation of public buildings and not area conservation. More importantly, the funding for conservation/restoration works are only given to public buildings and private buildings such as the pre-war traditional shophouses in the old quarter are not eligible for financial

assistance. For cultural tourism to achieve a symbiotic relationship with cultural heritage management, an innovative yet effective revenue capture mechanism should be implemented.

Addressing the Negative Media ImageOne of the damaging events that took place since the Melaka’s government announcement that it was seeking listing was the ‘trial by media’ that lasted for about a year from 2001 to 2002. The ‘trial by media’ was so bad that posters of negative media coverage notably the demolition of historical buildings were predominantly hung on the walls of the convention centre during a UNESCO conference on cultural heritage management in Lijiang, China in 2002. At one point, the ‘trial by media’ gave the impression that there was a form of conspiracy behind the scene, judged by the high number of ‘letter to the editor’ from as far as Britain, Australia and Thailand being printed in the local newsprint almost at the same time. To be fair, the authorities were trying hard to address the problem of illegal demolition triggered by the transformation of the city into a ‘leisure setting’, as discussed earlier. However, the ‘media crisis’ was not tackled effectively, which led to an unfairly negative image of Melaka and jeopardising its quest for World Heritage listing.

Implementation of Visitor Management Technique Through Tourism Management PlanAlthough visitor management strategies are recommended in the action plans commissioned by MBMB (MPMBB/UTM, 2002; JICA/MPMBB, 2002), they are presented as an appendage of the plans. To be effective, the visitor management techniques should be presented as part of a management plan for tourism in the historic study. By commissioning a specific management plan study, the impact caused by the influx of about 3 million annual visitors to a small and fragile area could then be addressed. Among others, the visitor management strategies should include the dispersion or concentration of high tourist arrivals at ‘robust’ areas, training programmes and interpretation.


Feat

ures

CONCLUSIONThe paper has discussed the ‘thorny path’ to World Heritage Listing based on the authors’ experience in Melaka over the past three years. Amidst the rhetoric about the suitability of Melaka for listing, many forgot that prior to the State government’s announcement, the old quarter was like a slum, suffering from serious building obsolesces and overall decay. This was due to the decades of neglect caused by the Rent Control Act which stifled economic regeneration. Currently, the old quarter is experiencing gentrification which has its good and bad points, and thus require careful management.Melaka may or may not get inscribed into the World Heritage List in the near future. If it does, it will take its rightful place as the site where globalisation begun and where racial tolerance and multi-culturalism exist not only in terms of symbols of the past but also in contemporary life. If the listing is deferred, Melaka will not be hurt economically given that more than 3 million tourists visit Melaka even without the listing. More importantly, the quest for World Heritage Listing has brought the aspatial communities in Melaka together on a long but fruitful journey in rediscovering their heritage.

Biodata :AMRAN HAMZAH is an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor. Besides running the M.Sc. Tourism Planning programme for the past 8 years, he is also actively involved in research and consultancy in the field of tourism planning. His areas of specialisation are heritage tourism, rural tourism, Pro Poor Tourism and sustainable tourism, having been involved in consultancy commissioned by UNESCO, JICA, the Ministry of Tourism, etc. His current assignment is to refine the dossier for Melaka and Penang’s serial nomination into the World Heritage List, commissioned by the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage. In his spare time, he likes to stay at home reading a book or watching several movies in a row on DVD and particularly avoids beaches, shopping malls and ecotourism sites. He can be contacted at [email protected] or [email protected].

ROSLI HJ. NOOR is a conservation architect by training. After spending several adrenalin pumping years working for the Melaka Museums Corporation (PERZIM) and later Majlis Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah (MBMB), he is currently Principal Assistant Secretary at the Jabatan Warisan Negara (Kementerian Kebudayaan, Kesenian dan Warisan). Within the conservation circle, Rosli is acknowledged as the sole person responsible for carrying out conservation programmes/projects as well as raising awareness on conservation matters in Melaka Historic City. In his spare time, he likes to travel but only to South-East Asian destinations with similar cultural ties. He can be contacted at [email protected].

References :1. Boyd, S. (2003) Marketing Challenges and Opportunities for Heritage Tourism, in Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (2003) Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions, Elservier: Oxford., pp. 190 - 202.2. Burtenshaw, D., Bateman, M. and Ashworth, G.J. (1991) The European City, London: David Fulton Publishers. 3. Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2003) World Heritage Sites: Managing The Brand, , in Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (2003) Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions, Elservier: Oxford., pp. 204 – 219.3. Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia (2002)Melaka Draft Structure Plan.4. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1997) Urban Tourism: Managing Resources and Visitors, in Wahab, S. and Pigram, J. (eds.) Tourism and Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability, London: Routledge.5. Japan International Cooperation Agency/Majlis Perbandaran Melaka Bandaraya Bersejarah (2002) The Study on the Improvement of Conservation in the Historical City of Melaka: Draft Final Report.

6. Majlis Perbandaran Melaka Bandaraya Bersejarah/Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (2002) Deraf Pelan Tindakan Pemeliharaan Bandaraya Melaka Bersejarah.7. McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002) Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management, New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.8. Muhammad Yusoff Hashim (1992) The Malay Sultanate of Malaca, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.9. Page. S. and Hall. C.M. (2003) Managing Urban Tourism, Harlow: Prentice Hall.10. Richards, G. and Hall, D. (2000) The Community: A Sustainable Concept in Tourism Development?, in Hall, D. and Richards, G, (2002)(eds.) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development, Routledge: London, pp. 1 – 14.11. Ritchter, L. (1999) Politics of Heritage Tourism Development, in Pearce, D.G. and Butler, R. (1999)(eds.) Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development, Routledge: London.12. Shackley, M. (1998) (ed.) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites, Butterworth_Heinemann: London.


Feat

ures

ABSTRACTCharles Reade, the fi rst Government Town Planner of the Federated Malay States (FMS) was appointed in 1921 to remedy the haphazard development in Kuala Lumpur and other towns of the FMS. He faced a daunting prospect of rectifying such mistakes of the past, set within a climate of economic slump, retrenchment, powerful business and property lobbying unoffi cials. The British decentralising

policy implemented from the mid 1920s further weakened the support for centralised town planning towards the end of the 1920s. This article illustrates the forgotten practice of replanning and redistribution of lots (an innovation within the British colonies), and Reade’s practical application of the Garden City design in Kuala Kubu Baru (British Malaya’s fi rst new town).

A TRIBUTE TO CHARLES READE:

REDISTRIBUTION SCHEMESAND KUALA KUBU BARU GARDEN CITY DESIGN(1921-1929)

KAMALRUDDIN SHAMSUDIN [email protected]

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Malaysia

VOL. 03 / ISSUE 01 / JANUARY 2006VOL. 03 / ISSUE 01 / JANUARY 2006VOL. 03 / ISSUE 01 / JANUARY 2006

Feat

ures

19

INTRODUCTIONThe period between 1915-1935 saw a number of pioneer town planners operating in the British colonies, entrusted to solve haphazard town development and undertake town improvement1. Charles Reade was one of the fi rst generation of self-styled town planners, attempting to propagate the virtues of the young town planning service and the idea of Garden City design. Stephen Ward (2000), a planning historian, nostalgically recalled these interwar decades as ‘a period of largely unfulfi lled promise, with only a few oases of enlightenment in a desert of disappointment’. Reade’s town planning legislature of 1923 arguably falls under the unfulfi lled promise (a subject well studied by historians, for example Bristow,1996, Lee Lik Ming et al, 1990). However, planning historians have left out the gems of Reade contributions, in particular his diffusion and practical application of the replanning and redistribution method and the Garden City design, translated within the Malayan setting; these surely must fall within Ward’s so-called ‘few oases of enlightenment in a desert of disappointment’.Replanning and redistribution (is

not a British practice, but originated from Germany) and the Garden City design implemented, would place him amongst other town planning luminaries of his time2, especially going beyond an active agent of international diffusion of planning ideas towards the role of an autonomous actor working within a hostile planning environment3.

This article is narrated and laid-out according to the following sequence: fi rstly a brief introduction to Reade’s background (recapping his earlier contributions in Britain and Australia). This is followed by Reade’s practice of redistribution in the FMS (perhaps the widest application of replanning within the British Dominion, outside of Germany); and the narration of redistribution theory, method and practice. (including Reade’s interpretation of the replanning method). Scheme number 3 (Kuala Lumpur is included in this article to illustrate Reade’s work). His achievements and limitations are discussed within the context of the machinery available to him and the attitudes of unoffi cials of the Federal Council of the FMS4.

Secondly, one of town planning best kept secret in Malaysia5 is revealed, Malaya fi rst new town, Kuala Kubu Baru (KKB); Reade’s lasting (and enduring) contribution to the Garden City Movement, hardly documented and a forgotten gem in Reade sojourn in Malaya. Kuala Kubu (the original town replaced by KKB) is historically narrated (there is ample history there, not forgetting at one time it was the third largest town in Selangor) leading to the planning and transfer of the old town to KKB. Some design elements are discussed, but since the original plan is (presently) unavailable, such writings only provide preliminary visual interpretations and some general understanding of Garden City design translation within the Malayan setting. Ironically KKB was not widely documented during Reade’s stay in Malaya, for the new town only began to be populated after 1930s, and he (probably) had no idea that it would be followed so closely given the weak fi nancial allocation for such undertaking during the slump period.

…planning historians have left out the gems of Reade’s contributions, in particular the diffusion and practical application of the replanning and redistribution method, and the Garden City design, translated within the Malayan setting; these are the ‘few oases of enlightenment in a desert of disappointment’ for the young town planning profession.

MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN

Feat

ures

20

1 According to Home (1997), the others operating in the British Dominions were Patrick Geddes (India), McLean (Sudan, Egypt, and Jerusalem), Clifford Holliday (Jerusalem), Albert Thompson (South Africa and Nigeria) and Captain Richard (Singapore).

2 Reade was operating in the period of Ebenezer Howard, Raymond Unwin, Barry Parker, Patrick Geedes and Thomas Adam.

3 Stephen Ward termed ‘autonomous actor’ to mean literally making a difference by their action. (2002 page 8).

4 This article is part of the author on-going research into the contributions of early planners in British Malaya. He has greatly benefi tted from local and international contacts and new fi ndings and relevant interpretive studies are been examined. It is hope a fuller understanding of the early pioneers in the Town Planning service of this country will be recorded and their contribution recognised for future generation and posterity.

5 Prior to this article, Kuala Kubu Baru has largely not appeared within town planning literature, in particular its planning concepts and the role played by the Federal Town Planning Department. However, an undated publication from the Majlis Daerah Hulu Selangor (where KKB is located) and that by Christine Garnaut (2004), and Kamalruddin Shamsudin and Christine Garnaut (International Planning Historical Society Journal, forthcoming, 2006) will put KKB on the town planning list of must see planning experience, especially where Garden City design is concerned.

Source: Photo of Charles Reade courtesy of Christine Garnaut


Feat

ures

INTRODUCING CHARLES READE Charles Reade was born in Invergargill, New Zealand in 1880. Although he grew up to be a journalist, he soon became interested in urban development issues, writing about slum conditions, urban deprivations and the need for systematic planning in the industrialisation period. This soon led him to learning the art and science of town planning at the Garden City and Town Planning Association in England. All these at a time when formal professional training in town planning was non-existent in Britain and he made an extensive study of the best practices worldwide (legislatively and practical layout application) through voracious reading of the media and its subscription and active involvement in urban slum issues. He belonged to an era ‘when town planning was considered a craft based on personal knowledge of a rudimentary collection of concepts about the city’ (Peter Hall, 2001).

The Royal Town Planning Institute was only formed in 1914 (and Reade was one of its associate founder) and the fi rst British University giving town planning courses was only offered in Liverpool in 19166.

So involved and passionate was he in this vocation, that he soon became the association magazine editor and spokesman. He held many talks in major cities in England and did much good work for both the community and the association7. By 1909, he published a book (Revelation of Britain: A Book for Colonials) on the ills of industrialisation on human settlement and examples of good municipal planning that could be applied to cure urban slums. He took a propagandist stance (as did a number of well-known early town planners of his time) in delivering the Garden City concept through the usage of lantern slides showing effects of slums and the virtues of good planning (with examples).

Just before the outbreak of the First World War (1914), Reade went to Australia with W.R. Davidge (architect, surveyor and planner) to propagate the Garden City movement cause. He gave numerous lectures on the Garden City concepts in many Australian towns and subsequently was appointed as town planning

advisor to the South Australian government in 1916.

In South Australia, he introduced a town planning legislature, established the South Australian town planning department, and completed a number of planning schemes. For example, Mitcham Garden Suburb in Adelaide, is today a heritage garden suburb, renamed Colonel Light Gardens. Reade applied the Garden City concept in many of his layout and even suggested a second park belt system to Adelaide, further enhancing the existing park belt laid out by Colonel William Light (the son to Captain Francis Light of Penang)8.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN MALAYAIn August of 1920, the High Commissioner to the Federated Malay States, Sir Lawrence Guillemard, negotiated with the South Australian Government over the services of Charles Reade to the FMS. Guillemard was looking for someone knowledgeable in town planning to implement FMS 1917 Town Improvement Enactment to remedy the existing haphazard development of major towns like Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh.

Reade established a small town planning department in Kuala Lumpur on the 18th January 1921. Reade’s post was initially on a temporary basis (survived the 1923 FMS retrenchment exercise based on instruction from the colonial offi ce in London) and subsequently his post was established on a permanent basis. He did an immediate survey of the condition of towns in the country and reported this to the government. His report entitled ‘Town Planning And Development In The Federated Malay States (1922)’ was a signifi cant piece of historical document, promoting the need for town planning machinery for the country (Goh Ban Lee, 1990). It outlined important aspects of town planning requirements; the need for a legislature to manage the growth of towns in an orderly manner, emphasising on prevention rather than cure, the difference between planning and subdivision; economies under Town Planning etc. Before he came, layout plans were drawn by administrators and surveyors serving

the Sanitary Board. Such plans drawn out did not always cater to good town planning principles, resulting in much haphazard lot arrangement and ineffi cient road or access requirement; resulting in later years unnecessary costly rectifi cation.

The most important arrangement that gave Reade much early encouragement as to the role of town planning service, was the work undertaken through the Advisory Town Planning Committee. He helped establish an Advisory Town Planning Committee (ATPC) for Selangor in 1921 with executive roles for their implementation; an important committee, as the Sanitary Board was largely dependent on other departments to plan and implement various infrastructure projects. This was in contrast to other cities in Europe where municipalities had much power to implement such function; this is an important observation, Reade may have probably overlooked this difference and laid much hope on centralised planning; but mounting pressure for decentralisation of British policies (due to native rulers wanting more power and fi nance) probably accounted for much unfulfi lled centralised planning intentions. The British Resident for Selangor was ATPC chairman with members from main technical departments. Much was accomplished through this committee. The application of replanning and redistributions of awkward lots along the German land pooling method (Lex Adickes, 1902) was used. This method was not a common instrument in Britain, however ‘town planning schemes’ were commonly practised among town planners in Britain; he combined both approaches. To a small extent, replanning and redistribution was already applied in India (example Bombay Act, 1911), and a common practice in Germany and Netherlands where planning was highly plan-based as opposed to a policy-based planning approach in Britain…this fact is not commonly highlighted or differentiated by planning historians. Thus Reade combined ‘town planning scheme approach’ and the ‘replanning and redistribution methods’ in the town planning legislature of 1923 in the FMS, a tool far in advance of its time which required strong participation from the land administrators, the land surveyors,


Feat

ures

6 Courses on Town Planning, however, were offered much earlier in Germany within the engineering schools. Indeed Lex Adickes, a planning methodology for replanning and land redistribution was already been implemented in 1902 in Frankfurt. Reade subsequently embrace this method throughout his whole career, particularly in British Malaya.

7 See Veale (page 76, undated), Reade was actively involve in successfully opposing a Bill raised in the House of Commons during 1913, which had proposed ‘goods railway route’ encircling the north-western district of London, passing through Hampstead Garden suburb which if allowed would damaged other town planning schemes. For his contribution he was made recipient of the Suburb Trust and co-partners, Tenents Ltd., and other letters of appreciation from local authorities and prominent leaders.

8 See the Catalogue, Second Town Planning and Housing Exhibition In Ipoh, 1927 (kept at the Federal Town and Country Planning library, Kuala Lumpur).

9 It was only in 1925 that he reported having secured the full complement of temporary professional staff from the Public Work Department and the Survey Department. However, in 1927 he reported that such temporary arrangement was disadvantagous to such professionals from the point of view of promotion and career development, as they were been by-pass from their respective departments.

10 For a good discussion of the planning legislature see especially Lee Lik Meng, Abdul Mutalip Abdullah and Alip Rahim, Town Planning In Malaysia – History and Legislature (USM, 1990), and M.R. Bristow, Colonial Planning In Prewar Malaysia (1996). The write-up here only relates to planning schemes and its relation to replanning and redistribution, and the negotiation work with land owners.

11 See page 14 para 72 of the Fourth Annual Report of Government Town Planner, 1925.

12 See page 3 of Sixth Annual Report of Government Town Planner, 1926

13 The Collector of Land Revenue was witheld from this task due to the various duties required by the rubber restriction and other duties during the slump period of 1920s.Thus the planning department had to undertake not only replanning and redistribution tasks, but also negotiation with land owners.

and Public Works Department to implement such schemes. A further requirement was that survey maps (in particular topographic maps and lithographs) were required to be up-to-date for the replanning exercise. Reade’s early success, through the ATPC, in garnering such cooperation greatly facilitated development in Kuala Lumpur; all these despite the 1923 planning legislature not been fully operational before 1925. In his yearly departmental report he recorded the shortage of staff and the long hours the planning department had to overcome to satisfy various landowners and the Sanitary Boards (of Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and Seremban)9.

TOWN PLANNING ENACTMENT, 1923 AND TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES10 The Town Planning Enactment of 1923 which he introduced was largely aimed at prevention (through General Town Plan), with little supporting measures for curing current urban ills (slums and poor subdivisions). General Town Plans were to be further detailed through Town Planning Schemes. The enactment was weakly supported by existing land law related to compensation, betterment, injurious affection, sales, exchange, surrender, leasing of land etc. Further, the government’s poor fi nancial support fi nally betrayed Reade’s enthusiasm and intentions. Reade however recorded numerous success at replanning schemes11. The number of planning schemes by principal Sanitary Board’s limits were: Kuala Lumpur 28, Ipoh 23, Seremban 10, Klang 6, and Port Swettenham 4, etc12.

Although the government appeared concerned with both curing and prevention of urban ills in the FMS towns, it lacked commitment to invest adequate fi nancial outlay for

such planning schemes. The lack of funds for constructing new roads in the planning schemes was a recurrent complaint from landowners (Malay Mail, 1926). Thus, curing without fi nancial outlay poses a greater obstacle to solving the issue. Reade’s initial suggestion that part of the solution could be obtained through exchanges of state land with those of private owners was a novel idea, through replanning and redistribution, an idea he learned from Germany (Lex Adickes, 1902). Further the Sanitary Board model and the Municipal model of Europe were largely different in regard of power of execution, where redistribution (or land pooling in Germany) was legislated within the municipal body (the city of Frankfurt leading the way). Thus he soon encountered oppositions from landowners largely lacking in public interest or civic concerns, despite achieving success through lengthy negotiation in others; a task he undertook on numerous occasions due to the unavailability of the Town Planning Administrator for Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh (a post assigned to the Collector of Land Revenue as provided in the Town Planning Enactment, 1923)13.

Replanning and redistribution was an idea far in advance of its time, and in Malaya it proved diffi cult to implement given the small number of trained professionals in land replotting (he had to train surveyors and engineers seconded to the department), and a lack of public interest ideology among land owners frustrate such tasks. Further as each scheme were being processed and implemented over a number of years until full completion, it therefore necessitated a well-maintained system of plan and updating record arrangement (see scheme number 3 illustrated in this article).

The application of replanning and redistributions of awkward lots along the German land pooling method (Lex Adickes, 1902) was used. This method was not a common instrument in Britain, however ‘town planning schemes’ were commonly practiced among town planners in Britain; he combined both approaches.


Feat

ures

Town Planning Schemes in Kuala Lumpur(Notes on population and planning schemes 1-28 are those of the author sourced from various Yearly Report of the Town Planning Department, National Archive, Malaysia)

Town Planning Schemes in Kuala Lumpur Progress of Preliminary Planning and Negotiation from 1921-1924 Yearly Report of the Town Planning Department 1924, National Archive, Malaysia)


Feat

ures

14 Regional planning was a novel idea newly propagated in America in the early 1020s by Thomas Adam, another fi rst generation British town planner operating in America and the fi rst to work as a planning consultant for a living. Thomas Adam was the fi rst President of the Town Planning Institute established in 1914.

Thus he persisted with both ideas; prevention in the form of a General Town Plan, and cure through replanning and redistribution of lots, despite lack of professional staff, resources and the need to service additional town planning requests from other Non-Federated Malay States (for example Terengganu, Penang and Kedah). Although he worked hard in securing successes in both areas between 1921 and 1924, it was not enough to evince its longevity. The Federal Council was largely infl uenced by property and commercial development lobbyist and the Council lacked political will in such replanning method despite acknowledging the need to remedy previous haphazard development. Further the uneasy relationship between the High Commissioner (Sir Lawrence Guillemard) and the Chief Secretary (Sir George Maxwell) had not benefi ted town planning cause; the former staunchly for decentralisation policy, and the latter for retaining some form of centralisation and more sympathetic to town planning cause.

The Town Planning Enactment 1923 was largely a centralised mechanism, with the Town Planning Committee (TPC) playing the coordinating role between various departments and individual landowners development proposals. Reade in his previous experience in Australia saw the importance of such coordinating body for such planning and developmental work, a mechanism to prevent uncoordinated development and haphazard development in urban areas.

This set-up although meant to promote greater coordination and control from Kuala Lumpur, was seen to be taking away the powers

of the Sanitary Board, although the chairman of the Board, was latterly made chairman to the TPC. Indeed departmental jealousies have made diffi cult the implementation of many of the planning schemes (for example recalcitrant Town Planning Administrators seconded from the Land Offi ce); further the implementation of British Government decentralization policy in 1927 under Sir Lawrence Guillemard was quick to remove such a set-up, the TPC was seen not in line with such a decentralised policy.

Even without the accompanying rules (which was only effective a year later in 1925), Reade (through the Advisory Town Planning Committee) continued to report success at replanning and redistribution in the FMS albeit delays in some. He later suggested planned fi nancial outlay in advance of town planning schemes, and that outlying areas outside of the Sanitary Board be planned along a regional planning format14 to counter the lack of coordinating mechanism of the proposed 1927 Town Planning Bill (to repeal the 1923 Town Planning Enactment). Both ideas were not taken up by the Government. Sir Lawrence Guillemard, the High Commissioner, not convinced of Reade’s contribution was also advised to reduced the roles played by Reade. However, Reade’s idea of maintaining planning service to Sanitary Board through Town Planning Superintendent was incorporated into the 1927 Town Planning Enactment.In 1928, to anticipate development outside of the Sanitary Board, Reade instructed the departments in Perak, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan to prepare regional plans, to coordinate development between the Sanitary Board and outlying areas.

Sir Lawrence Guillemard, the High Commissioner invited Reade to FMS but preferred decentralisation of town planning activities. The 1927 Town Planning enactment had largely disadvantaged the application

of replanning and redistribution.

Sir George Maxwell was sympathetic towards town planning cause and supported much of Reade’s earlier work and staffi ng requirements from 1921

until 1927. Sir George Maxwell retired in 1927.

Crest of the FMS Chief Secretary Crest of the FMS Chief Secretary


Feat

ures

THE REPLANNING AND REDISTRIBUTION METHOD15 This method was based on the highly successful German land pooling method (Lex Adickes, after the Mayor of Frankfurt, Franz Adickes, 1902)16. Reade earlier in 1909 had wrote a book (The Revelation of Britain: A Book For Colonials, 1909) where in it, he put forward the advantages to be had from municipal intervention through replanning and redistribution. According to Reade (1927): ‘The object of a Redistribution Scheme is to substitute for the existing titles convenience building lots possessing permanent access by roads and, where necessary render drainage and sanitation possible in conformity with an approved Town Planning Scheme forming part of the General Town Plan’.

The carrying out of a systematic and equitable rearrangement of ownerships and boundaries is executed under redistribution plans as follows17:

Plan A: Showing the existing lands (or titles) of the different owners within the scheme, together with existing roads (if any), drains, buildings etc.

Plan B: Showing the new lots proposed to be alloted to the owners and chargees and boundaries thereof together with reserves for roads, lanes, etc.

The Redistribution is arrived at by a mathematical procedure epitomised as follows:(1) The total area of the land within the scheme (or ‘Unit’) and the areas of each ownership (or title) are calculated from Revenue Survey data.

(2) The areas and percentage of reserves for roads, lanes etc., are also calculated.(3) The ‘Building Area’ (i.e. lands to be allocated to the different owners) is determined by deducting (2) from (1).(4) Each owner receives in the new lots his proper share or percentage of the ‘Building Area’ calculated in proportion to the area of his original title.(5) Where any land abuts an existing public road an addition is made to the area of the original title of the owner before the new lots are allocated to him under the Scheme for the purpose of ensuring an equitable redistribution.(6) Th new area or lots allocated to each owner fall, as far as possible, within the boundary of the original title. New Titles are issued accordingly.(7) The necessary resurvey of the boundaries of the new lots and issue of titles are usually undertaken by Government free of charge. (8) Charges (or other encumbrances) are transferred from the old to the new title according as the chargee desires.

The Redistribution therefore results in each land owner contributing a proportionate share of the reserves for roads, lanes, etc., necessary to subdivide and develop the lands within the ‘Unit’. In the case of road more than 66 feet wide, the excess width is, with consent of the Resident, paid for by the State. State land included in any redistribution is treated the same as private lands (i.e. State and private lands each contribute their proportionate share for reserves for roads, lanes etc.). There was no ‘free gift of land’ by Government.

15 According to Home (1997), replanning and redistribution method had stimulated long discussions at the Town Planning Institute in 1920.

16 The Japanese land readjustment technique is also adopted from the Lex Adickes method.

17 2nd. Exhibition In British Malaya of Modern Town Planning and Housing, page 70, 1927.

Right: Jalan Ampang 1903Source: Pictorial History 1400-2004Wendy Khadijah Moore(Edition Didier Millet)Fe

atur

es


Mathematics of Replanning and Redistributionsource: TAL Concannon

Feat

ures


Plan 1: Scheme 3 Kuala Lumpur showing proposed subdivisions (now abandoned) by private owners in the vicinity of Pudu and Bukit Bintang Road.

Plan 2:Scheme 3 Kuala Lumpur showing alternative town planning proposals in course of execution for the subdivision and development of the same area for shophouses, terrace dwellings, bungalows, open spaces and other requirements.

Redistribution near Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur (before and after)Source : Third Annual Report Of Government Town Planner, 1924.

This Scheme Number 3 was provisionally approved by the Advisory Town Planning Committee in 1922 as a shophouse and residential area. Negotiations provided a reserve for a children’s park without charge. Contour plans were required to provide adjustments to the plan. Private development for part of the scheme was effected for exchanges, readjustment of boundaries and road reserves according to the scheme’s

proposal. In 1923 the scheme was divided into 3 units i.e. illustrating (i) unit completed by agreement with 2 owners and sanctioned by government (ii) holdings affecting 10 separate owners, of which 5 agreed to proposal by signing, and remaining expressed verbal agreement, and (iii) unit still not yet undertaken. By 1924, detailed plans and progress report were prepared and countersigned by the Town


Feat

ures

Planning Administrator and submitted to the British Resident for sanction. Various exchanges were approved and arrangements were advanced towards securing the adjustment of owners’ boundaries and proper subdivision of land for building purposes. Reade anticipated various improvements by exchange to include main road access and widening that earlier town improvement method might not be considered economically feasible except at heavy expenditure. In 1925 Reade reported majority of the owners have signifi ed their written agreement and a considerable section of the scheme had already been surveyed or in course of execution in accordance with the Resident’s approval. Thus in place of a prospective disorderly development defeating effective economic use of the land, a logical layout has been substituted. Under this layout proper access was being secured together with the full use of the land in conformity with its physical features. Several smaller properties affected remained to be consulted and their interests and holdings coordinated with the redistribution proposals without injury to existing buildings. Such buildings were been duly incorporated in the scheme without immediate disturbance. In 1927, Reade reported that erection of thirteen shops on the frontage of Pudoh Road was approved. A number of terrace dwelling lots were surveyed, part of frontage of Bukit Bintang Road had been subdivided for shophouses; whilst a bypass road at the junction of Treacher and Bukit Bintang roads was still under consideration.

Based on similar replanning examples in other schemes in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and Seremban, Reade in 1927 reported that to execute the replanning and redistribution policy from the General Town Plan down to the unit level of the schemes, proper and systematic classifi cation and use of plans were of upmost importance. He recommended that the following class of maps be organised: Topographic Survey Sheets (1 and 2 chain), Draft General Plans (8 or 4 chain), Scheme Area Plan (1 and 2 chain topographic sheet), Preliminary Scheme Plans (2 chain topographic sheet), Scheme Plan and record Maps (2 chain topographic sheet), Unit Plan (1 chain), Survey Requisition Plan. The table above shows work carried out in 1924.

Reade reported in 1927 the work done ending December 1926 for Kuala Lumpur:

‘There was considerable activity in practically the whole of the 28 scheme areas into which Kuala Lumpur is divided. The number of detail plans and particulars, prepared by the department together with amendments and alterations by the Town Planning committee were considerable, necessitating constant work and vigilance by the whole staff in keeping pace with and recording current demands which showed considerable increase…’

The Assistant Government Town Planner (S.K. Sibbald, an engineer with Town Planning experience), stationed in Perak, wrote in the 1926 Annual Report (page 12) some of the diffi culties relating to planning schemes:

‘The greatest diffi culty encountered frequently during the year was to persuade recalcitrant owners or chargees to accept the proposed plans for the systematic development of the area in which their holdings were situated, even although they were

prepared to agree that advantages were to be obtained. As matters stand any one owner in a scheme or unit can hold up all progress. Generally such owners are stubbornly opposed to any proposals either for their own or their neighbours’ benefi t, ‘The public welfare’, is a phrase foreign to their understanding or instincts. They lack the public spirit or interest in the development of the town and usually act on the principle of ‘what I have I hold.’

‘Invariably the fi rst questions that landowners ask are (1) when will this road be constructed? and (2) who is to pay the cost of such construction, or (3) when will Government make the road, (implying that Public Funds will bear the cost of all future roads)’.

Source: Third Annual Report of Government Town Planner, 1924.


Feat

ures

Reade refuted all the above allegations, and some of these criticisms were misinformed about the working of the 1923 Town Planning Enactments. Reade was only in an advisory capacity. Appointed members could still comment and make adjustment to his plans. In any case Hampshire criticisms was answered with such appointment in due time when the Enactment came into operation.

Due to Reade’s enthusiasms in the carrying out of planning schemes (to prove to the government it could be done), he was variously labelled an enthusiast, utopian zealot, etc.18, his road widening proposals of major arterials to 100 feet has often been a source of dispute, as it required surrender of such reserve by landowners and cost to build them by the government. Such reserve were meant to be developed at a later date when the need arise, and for the government to avoid paying at a much higher acquisition cost in the future. Reade (in his yearly report 1923 and subsequent years) cited many cases in the past where such measures were not taken, resulting in diffi culties faced by the government to effect improvement later on. But the Government, due to exigencies and administrative convenience decided to reduce such reserves from 100 feet to 80 feet in the later part of 1920s.

Rules were needed to implement the replanning and redistribution schemes on a systematic basis. It was gazetted in September 1924. As regards delays in approving layout, the Town Planning Committee had to ensure plans submitted were in conformity with the General Town Plan and details of replanning, further any one landowners in the scheme could hold up the approval process generally. The absence of necessary mechanism to settle disputes was also a constant source of delay.

As regard to transparency, the Town Planner scheme is not a dark secret, it could be viewed at the Town Planning offi ce and discussed to suit owners and public amenity or public interest (see paragraph 12 of the Town Planning Rules, 1924).

HOSTILITIES The Town Planning Enactment of 1923 and its methods (i.e. planning schemes, and replanning and redistribution) proved to be sources of criticisms from land owners and unoffi cials alike. As participation of land owners were crucial to its outcome, it success was dependent on their cooperation. Despite a small staff, with professionals on loan from the technical department (Public Works Department and Survey Department), numerous delay in obtaining such staffi ng, and the unavailability of land administrators to undertake redistribution and negotiation with land owners on countless number of occassion, much good work was reported accomplished by the planning department (Yearly Report 1922-1928).

Despite this, criticisms from unoffi cials (particularly those with business interests in the Federal Council meetings and in the media continued unabated and appeared to reach its climax in 1926. The following are a snapshot of the type of criticisms levelled at the department or to Reade himself:(1) Town Planner’s scheme are above criticisms (referring to the need to appoint committee members to criticize Town Planners schemes (Hampshire,1925).(2) Town Planning is a new art and science run by enthusiast who would be exceedingly dangerous on government expenditure (Jones, 1925).(3) Delay caused by the operation of the Town Planning Rules (Choo, Jones,1925).(4) The Town Planner was conferred very wide and extensive powers (giving free reign to his enthusiasm) (Bailey, 1926).(5) There were numerous cases in which owners were prevented from building through the action of the committee (The Malay Mail,1926).(6) Landlords not prepared to build due to likelihood that a part, if not the entire building and land would be required to meet the designs of the Town Planner, whose scheme, or schemes, is a dark secret (Malay Mail, 1926).

The other criticisms on emoluments and perceived large outlay for the department is largely a personal and departmental jealousy viewpoint and a lack of understanding of the cost involve to undertake various planning activities for all areas in the F.M.S.

Reade had already cautioned in his earlier report of 1922 and also in the Second Town Planning Exhibition (1927), that:

‘Any expectation that the complete realization of General Town Plans, or individual Schemes, in the Federated Malay States will occur within the next few years is almost certainly doomed to disappointment. General Town Plans (with complementary details in scheme form) are not things for to-day; neither can they be carried out next week. Their primary object, in all modern countries, is to lay down and anticipate on paper present and future requirements extending over a period of 20 to 25 years. The carrying out and execution of these plans, or part thereof, when approved, is usually a slow and gradual process keeping pace from year to year with the normal growth of the town and the prosperity and development of the State. Years of effort and action are required by the responsible authorities (technical and administrative) working in cooperation with landowners and others concerned. Town Planning (as European experience demonstrates) is continuous and unceasing. It is an essential part in the life of all towns and cities.’

Thus by 1926, Reade wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Government two major concern impeding town improvement and town development works in the FMS which a ‘settled fi nancial policy and regular provision would help overcome’19:

‘(i) Compensation and Acquisitions: Absence of adequate or designated funds for the purpose of compensating landowners or acquiring by agreement or compulsorily (in the case of lands required for a public purpose), lands injuriously affected by preliminary improvement or


Feat

ures

development schemes adopted by Town Planning Committees and approved by Government.(ii) Roads and Works: Construction and maintenance of certain classes of roads or widenings within reserves proposed to be surrendered by owners or acquired by the State under such approved schemes.’

REPLANNING, REDISTRIBUTION, AND NEGOTIATION AFTER 1927He further suggested a continuous fi ve-year programme of probable fi nancial commitments by the State for approved works or dealings. However, the government did not incorporate such suggestions into the 1927 Town Planning Enactment. Upon the implementation of the 1927 Enactment, negotiation work undertaken by Town Planning Administrators ceased (except in Seremban) as the enactment did not specifi cally provide for the role of the Town Planning Administrator20. Thus while this confusion was been sorted out, such task fell again on the Town Planning Department. Later after this confusion, the Collector of Land Revenue was appointed to undertake such Town Planning Administrator’s role for the various Sanitary Boards. Planning schemes (of the 1923 Town Planning Enactment) were revisited through the new Town Planning Committee of the 1927 Town Planning Enactment; many decisions of the earlier committee were continued and some changed to accommodate the latest development. Perhaps an important (but preliminary observation) to be made here is that no longer were replanning and redistribution supported strongly through the 1927 Town Planning Enactment(a decentralised planning legislation); and following Reade retirement in 1929, such method of layout planning was no longer a standard practice; in particular when the Federal Department received 5 new senior town planners from December 1928 to 1929 (Hancock, 1949). They were probably not trained or inclined in replanning and redistribution method.

In 1949, Hancock (Acting Town Planner, Federation of Malaya), no longer mentioned about replanning, redistribution and negotiation with owners as been a common practice of the department. Further, during the Japanese occupation many of the department plans and fi les were lost and much drawing had to be redone manually from memory without recourse to surveyed plans and titles from the land offi ce. Probably due to this discontinuity of planning approach (i.e. the concept of planning schemes supported by well-defi ned road hierarchy and access, and negotiation with landowners to conform to such requirement) the approval of layout and consideration of access and surrender of road reserves were slowly not consistently undertaken, resulting in haphazard development with road access and widening not coordinated and worked out (as was practised during Reade’s time). Further, perusing Hancock’s report of 1949, such so-called ‘Town Planning Works’ involving constructing road, river realignment, and open space provision and fi nancial allocation were no longer reported. There appear to be a separation of work between the Land Offi ce and those of the Town Planning Department as compared to the close cooperation during Reade’s tenure. To date, such practice in various State Town and Country Planning Departments with regard to replanning, redistribution, and negotiation are not largely practised. Local Plans and other draft preliminary layout showing road outlines provided guides for landowners desiring to subdivide their land etc.; thus comprehensive replanning, redistribution and negotiation ceased to be a common practice (at least not in the manner Reade practised in the 1920s).

18 Proceeding of The Federal Council, 1927, b175.

19 Selangor Files no. 4917/26. National Archive, Malaysia

20 According to Lee Lek Ming at. el. the Town Planning Enactment, 1927, under Section 6 provides for the Resident to appoint such offi cers for this role though it was not specifi cally mentioned.


Feat

ures

Approach to Kuala Kubu Baru from Ampang Pechah


Feat

ures

About an hour’s drive from Kuala Lumpur, nestling among the foothills of the mountain range of Malaya, along the route to Fraser’s Hill, lies the small township of Kuala Kubu Baru–Malaya’s (forgotten) fi rst new township.


Feat

ures

GARDEN CITY PRINCIPLE:ITS APPLICATION IN MALAYAAnother forgotten contribution largely missing from historical articles (and book) about Reade is his translation of the Garden City principle applied to Malayan setting. Landowners and property developers generally placed little appreciation for the development of pleasing townscape with beauty and safety, favouring hefty profi t in the ‘young’ Malayan townscape. Reade only had complete control in the layout of government quarters within government land. The closest to Garden City design on a town scale was Kuala Kubu Baru.

Economic and administrative expediencies, coupled with landowners’ lack of civic and public interest within land development made the application of Garden City design model largely impractical. However, Reade had the opportunity to plan housing areas for government quarters in various towns in the

FMS (the most signifi cant been at Imbi Road, Jalan Cochrane (Kuala Lumpur), and Green Town (Ipoh). Readers should be informed that many government quarters in Kuala Lumpur have largely been demolished, save for a few still standing in Sentul and Jalan Cochrane. In many other smaller towns, such quarters are still being used but their conditions have deteriorated and may soon make way for newer development. There are no attempt at present to refurbish them on a large scale. Places like Ipoh, Kuala Pilah, and Seremban still retain the remaining few housing quarters.

Kuala Kubu Baru (KKB): Reade’s forgotten contribution to the Garden City MovementAccording to Tate (1987), the old Kuala Kubu town (now no longer exists) was the third largest town in Selangor after Kuala Lumpur and Klang, it ‘was well-known to European travellers en route across the Main Range to Pahang or who

were planning to climb the eleven kilometres to one of the country’s fi rst hill stations, Treacher’s Hill or Bukit Kutu (they were usually carried up to the top!)’. Kuala Kubu was also the administrative centre for the district of Ulu Selangor.

Kuala Kubu historically is synonymous with the following names and events: Raja Mahadi (of the Selangor Wars, 1870) and Cecil Ranking (British District Offi cer, Majistret and Collector of Land Revenue) and the tale of the white crocodile and the destruction of the dam at Ampang Pecah. The old town was about the size of the current KKB but its government buildings and shophouses were much larger in size. The old railway station was larger than the current station at Kuala Kubu Road. It was a lively and prosperous town21.

The town site and vicinity was a constant source of worry for its residents, as it was perennially fl ooded by the overfl ow of the Selangor River and its tributaries. According to the Selangor Annual Report 1921: ‘In Kuala Kubu conditions became so bad owing to constant fl ooding as a result of deposits of mining silt from the upper reaches of the Selangor River and the consequent rise of the river-bed [that it] necessitated the temporary transfer of the district headquarters to Rasa, a town some four miles distance. The need of the future permanent headquarters of the district is still under consideration’. Between 1923 and 1926 Kuala Kubu was fl ooded a number of times. In 1924 Reade was given the opportunity to plan anew the township of Kuala Kubu Baru. By 1926, upon the advice of the Public Works Department the government decided to move the town to a new site about 2 miles to the north22. By the end of 1927 Reade reported the progress of work at KKB in the Seventh Annual Report of the Town Planning Department as follows (quoted in full):

‘The approved town plan for Kuala Kubu Bharu covers an area of approximately 333 acres of State and private lands acquired for the purpose. The steady destruction and plight of the old town, due to fl oods and silting, necessitated

Picture postcard of Kuala Kubu Baru town with Bukit Menggaru Mati in the background


Feat

ures

much of Reade’s original layout is still in place. Visitors to KKB will immediately appreciate its quint, idyllic townscape and lush park belt and scenic hills and mountainous backdrop.

energetic action in accordance with the requirements of the State Government. The preparation of the plans, reports, estimates and detailed considerations affecting administrative, business, residential, health and other requirements (including District Offi ces) proved to be work of considerable magnitude. Continuous co-operation in the process was maintained by the Government Town Planner with the District Offi cer, Public Works and other departments.

The formation of the principal streets is now rapidly taking shape on the ground and during the coming year there is a strong indication that an entirely new town is likely to be well started on the way towards completion.

The scheme provides for 320 shop lots, with a further possible extension of 140 lots to satisfy the requirements of many applications by owners and tenants of the old town, and others. Sites for markets, police, cinemas, post offi ce, fi re station,

21 Source from Mr. Long Bin Akob and Tuan Hj. Dahalan. In Sejarah Kuala Kubu Lama (author unknown). Sejarah Daerah Hulu Selangor. (undated). Page 3.

22 Selangor Annual Report, 1926 page 14. Source quoted in Kemunculan dan Kemusnahan Kuala Kubu 1883-1931 : Satu Persepsi Sejarah oleh Mohd. Abd. Rahim Abdullah (Sarjana Muda Sastera, USM). Undated.

Photograph Top Left: Postcard of old Kuala Kubu before 1926.Source: Kuala Lumpur in Postcard 1900-1930Collection of Major David Ng(Rtd) and Steven Tan (Fajar Bakti S/B 1987)

Bottom left: Kuala Kubu railway station in 1903Source: National Archive Malaysia.

temples, recreation areas, etc., are provided for. The new District Offi ces and buildings are sited on a hill commanding the town and main road diversion connecting Pahang with the principal north and south highway of Selangor.

Practically all building sites are located above the lowest level recommended by the Public Works Department to ensure safety against possible future fl oods or further silting. The sites includes provision for hospitals, rest-house, schools, clubs, churches, subordinate quarters, the lay-out and building of which are now in course of execution. The immediate sites chosen provide for 12 Class VI, 18 Class VII, 36 Class VIII and 36 Class IX quarters (104 in all) independent of separate provision for senior Government and private accommodation.


Feat

ures

2

45

6

10

1234567

7

7

Clock TowerPost Offi ceFire StationGovernment QuartersTransmission TowerCatholic ChurchGolf CourseGovernment Offi ce/ Police StationHospitalMosque

8

89

10

KUALA KUBU BARU AND SURROUNDING AREA KUALA KUBU BARU AND SURROUNDING AREA

23 Selangor Annual Report, 1931. Page 65. Sourced from an academic degree thesis ‘Kemunculan Dan Kemusnahan Kuala Kubu 1883-1931’ by Mohd. Abd. Rahim Abdullah (undated).

24 Mohd Saiful Adil Daud (1975) ‘Kuala Kubu Karam’ in Sejarah Daerah Hulu Selangor (undated). Majlis Daerah Hulu Selangor.

1

3

4

9

(Author’s illustration )(Author’s illustration )

To R

asah

& K

uala

Lum

pur

To R

asah

& K

uala

Lum

pur

T

View of government quarters near hospital.

4

4

Park

bel

tPa

rk b

elt


Feat

ures

A considerable section of low-lying worked-out mining land is incorporated in the scheme, which includes anti-malarial measures. This area is proposed to be reserved for a park belt separating the shopping and trading areas from the main residential area, and used for general recreation purposes, including padangs, cricket fi eld, and golf links. A new water supply serving all parts of the town by gravitation is also under construction. (see illustration)

The lay-out has been arranged to permit of possible extension to the different areas or zones set apart for commercial, residential and other purposes. It is part of the scheme also that alternative means of direct access may be had eventually from the new main road diversion, connecting the Gap with Rasah and the north, and thereby to enable the principal commercial and residential areas to be extended further in the future years should circumstances require.’

Relocation of population to the new town was a slow process. As an inducement, the Government provided free of charge the site of new shophouses at KKB on condition the old site was surrendered. The offer was being made up to February 1932. In 1931 the old town was fl ooded again23:

On the 6th May, 1931, a serious fl ood occurred in Kuala Kubu (lama) and for several hours in the afternoon the old town was under 5 feet of water and all communication by road was cut off. This fl ood gave a noticeable impetus to the development of the new township of Kuala Kubu Baru. At the end of the year there were 71 shophouses completed in Kuala Kubu Baru town.

Most of the population moved to KKB and surrounding areas, for example Kampung Kelapa, Sungai Damar (see illustration), Rasa and some even further to Batang Kali and Kerling 24.

Today much of Reade’s original layout is still in place. Visitors to KKB will immediately appreciate its quaint, idyllic townscape and lush park belt and scenic hills and mountainous backdrop. The tight gridiron layout in term of laying out the shophouses is a compromise to economise on space, enabling Reade to provide for ample green separating the town and its residential areas. Thus the park belt

and government housing areas have been spaciously designed.

Many Garden City design elements were translated and applied in KKB, i.e. park belts and playgrounds, visually attractive tree-planting treatment, enhancing natural landscape view, low density housing, town vista and views, sympathetic treatment of topography, separation of use, etc. In addition, some typical colonial layout arrangement resembling colonial power and control is obvious too. These are illustrated in the following narration.

A south-westernly diagonal Y-shaped entrance affording tree line planting provides a visual panoramic glimpes of the shophouses as one nears the town. The other entrance to the town is from the south taking off from the road to Fraser’s Hills and upon reaching the town, a two storey pre-war building greets the visitor. A fi re station to its left has recently been refurbished to be converted into a tourist visitor centre. The town is surrounded and bordered by a number of mountains (Bukit Menggaru Mati, Bukit Batu Pahat, and Bukit Kutu) and provides a scenic backdrop or picture-postcard effect. Government buildings and a police station (the station used to be church building) sits on a hill overlooking the town (a typical feature of colonial layout in other British dominion). A clock tower situated in front of the government building commemorates the coronation of King George V1 and Queen Elizebeth II 1937; the tower is visible from the shophouses on the same side as the Post Offi ce (which is still in use).

Visitors will feel a rustic charm reminiscent of a colonial past in KKB. According to Maizura (a reporter, 2005) ‘the town itself is deceptively small, comprising four main streets lined with mostly 70-year-old, colonial-type, double-storey shophouses. Branching out in all directions, however, is a neat network of tree-lined roads and avenues that really does showcase how green the area is. The main avenue leading to the town centre has 70-year-old angsanas carefully pruned for a bonsai effect. …the best thing to do when you are here is really just to take a leisure stroll–you can cover the whole town on foot in less than half a day–and just enjoy the relax pace of life’.

Police Station on the hill ( previously a church building ) in the background.

Clock tower commemorates the coronation of King George V1 and Queen Elizebeth II 1937

The old fi re station is been converted into a Tourist Information centre

Visually imposing new transmission tower


Feat

ures

1

2

3

45

67

8

Newer buildings interposed within the rows of pre-war shophouses (of eclectic and neo-classic design), a number of vacant lots with undergrowth provides relief from the row of shophouses. The overall atmosphere is one of a slow pace and quiet peaceful setting.

Between the town and private residential areas is the park belts (another fi rst for Malaysian towns, not common in traditional and even newer township). Recreational complexes and schools occupies a large chunk of the park belt today. As one walks away from the town in a westward direction along the gently sloping park belt, blue junipers, tecoma, angsana trees and native plants provides lush green and pleasing atmosphere; while single and semi-detached government quarters fronting the park belt awaits

and greets visitors at a junction. A 30 feet road takes us to the golf course and resthouse area.

The hospital and housing quarters is nestled on a hill overlooking the park belt; large matured trees and thick undergrowth however impede clear view of the town from many locations in the hospital area and quarters. Many of the original semi-wooden detached building (dating from the 1930s) are in a state of disrepair; many of these are still occupied by government servants or by quasi government bodies. Some row housing (single and double storey) for the hospital staff are lined facing southward overlooking an approach road to the park belt from the main road to Fraser’s Hill. Others quarters within the hill with children playground allotment. Generally the atmosphere is one of quiet solitude and lush green.

Shophouse along Jalan Mat Kilau. Note the original wooden timber of the fi rst fl oor in this pre-war building.

1. Clock tower2. Fire Station3. Catholic church4. Bus station5. Market area6. Transmission tower7. Primary school8. Government quarters

Right : Illustration of Kuala Kubu Baru town centre by author (adapted from Syed Zainol Abidin Idid, 1995). Note the availablity of vacant spaces for shoplots.

Below: Entrance to town centre from the South via main road to Fraser’s Hill.


Feat

ures

Quarters at road junction Children’s playground View from park belt towards town centre

Park belt area after a shower A school in the park beltView from road bend overlooking

school towards town

Quarters facing the park belt View towards the park belt View from road bend

Lush green within the park belt.


Feat

ures

Away from the hospital area, better class detached residential quarters are to be found a stone throw to the north of the town, housing the police and other government department heads or senior offi cers. Two newer schools are found to the fringe of this quarters and sloping towards the park belt. Indeed KKB appear to have relatively more schools compared to other smaller town in the country (its district status and other security and safety function probably warrants such facilities). A road leading north-east of the town takes us to the National Fire Brigade Training Centre and Museum; single and row housing quarters and a school make up this

Quarters facing the park belt (now a youth rehabilitation centre)

Quarters within the hopital vicinity


Feat

ures

Goverment Quarters in the vicinity of the hospital area

Quarters within the hospital area Quarters within the hospital area

Quarters along Jalan Dato’ Tabal, town centre Quarters along Jalan Dato’ Tabal, town centre

area, with the forest of the Bukit Menggaru Mati in the background. Sandwiched between the road to Fraser’s Hill and this area is the Chinese New Village and a number of terrace housing schemes. Indeed much of KKB residential housing are separated from the town by such park belt…a unique feature normally not found in new and traditional towns of Malaya (it’s worth repeating this point over and over again). KKB perhaps epitomise the last bastion of colonial townscape still largely hidden from the ravages of modernity with their appalling effects of overdevelopment and ugly sprawl.


Feat

ures

CONCLUSIONSThe economic slump of the 1920s was a major factor hindering dispursement of fund to implement major roads and related infrastructure programmes of the town planning schemes. Reade’s replanning schemes required a highly effi cient cooperative process between various departments (the administrators, the surveyors, and the engineers) for the various preplanning and post approval development activities. Looking back, one sense that such a machinery was not in place; public money was diffi cult to come by for paying compensation and dealing with disputes. Reade used his creativity to adapt the German replanning and redistribution method despite inadequate machinery, manpower, and material resources. It was an ambitious programme25.What was accomplished was largely due to Reade’s immense enthusiasm and perseverance; a lesser planner lacking in such values and conviction would have thrown in the towel much earlier. Reade went beyond an active agent of international diffusion of planning ideas towards a more autonomous actor’s role within such a hostile planning realm26. In this regard he stood alongside other luminaries of his time and deserved to be rescued from historical neglect.

The Garden City Design principles applied at KKB, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, and other smaller towns of the FMS await scholarly studies, examining the level of diffusion and adaptation of planning ideas and ideologies so fashionable in the West of a bygone era. Indeed Reade’s sojourn in Malaya (1921-1929) had laid some of the corrective townscape and spacious suburb living setting which should ideally fi t the ‘few oasis of enlightenment in a desert of disappointment’ which Ward lamented earlier. One wonders what legacy will the existing planners leave behind when they retire?

About 3 kilometres to the south of KKB lies the old Kuala Kubu (Ampang Pecah). Some remnants of old building blocks could be seen especially those near a mosque near Ampang Pecah. Its immediate environ is made up of a number of higher educational, recreational and residential schemes. Terrace housing is found at the old site. KKB general environ besides being a district centre is also an educational hub (mainly of dormitory type), a major training centre for the Armed Forces, the police, the fi re brigade and youth training centre. The landscape is that of a wide spans of open space with disused mining ponds (many turned into recreational purposes), foothills of the Bukit Batu Pahat, rivers (with river raftings sport activities), secondary undergrowth and thick bushes.

Recent development at KKB indicates newer residential lots abutting the golf course are being sold. A high-rise housing development had been shelved (for now). KKB requires to be saved from incongruous form of development, if at all it is to retain its invaluable town planning heritage.

KKB environment possesses a rustic charm of its own befi tting the garden suburb design applied to a small town scale…Malaya’s fi rst new town in the tradition of the Garden City Design; in this regard Reade left an indelible mark within the town planning history of this country.

Reade went beyond an active agent of international diffusion of planning ideas towards a more autonomous actor’s role within a hostile planning realm

View towards Bt. Kutu along Eastern Section of town centre.

Shophouses along Jalan Mat Kilau on a busyday

25 JM Gullick, 2000. A History of Kuala Lumpur 1856-1939. page 249. Gullick felt the replanning methods and the town planning scheme where quite impossible to implement given the lack of public money to pay compensation.

26 Alan Hutching while visiting Kuala Lumpur in 2003 relate to the author that Reade was a genius working within a environment hostile to town planning. He does not tolerate poor and uncommitted work from his staff and other government offi cers. Such was his devotion to this young profession called town planning.


Feat

ures

Biodata :

KAMALRUDDIN SHAMSUDIN (Kldin) has served the town planning service for more than 28 years. He has written more than 70 papers and articles for seminars, planning journals, and book chapters. These includes GIS, Safe City and Social Impact Assessment, Decision Science Tools, Public Participation, Transportation Planning and Planning History. On Planning History, he is presently examining the contribution of Charles Reade towards the development of the planning service and impact of replanning and redistribution schemes in Kuala Lumpur and other towns in the Federated Malay States (FMS).

Kldin was a student of ITM (ADTRP), the University of Newcastles upon Tyne (MPhil), I.H.S Rotterdam (Urban Renewal) and ITC Enschede (SMCDM). He is currently Director of Research and Development Division, FDTCP. He is the Vice President of the Malaysian Association of Social Impact Assessment (MSIA). Kldin is presently editing a book, ‘Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Malaysian Town Planning Practice’. One of his vocational concerns is the institutionalisation decision science.

References:1. BRISTOW, M.R. 1996. Colonial Planning In Prewar Malaysia. Occasional Paper Number 44. Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.2. GARNAUT, C. 2002. Charles Reade And The International Diffusion of Town Planning Ideas. Paper for IPHS Conference.3. GOH BAN LEE 1990. Urban Planning in Malaysia: History, Assumptions and Issues. Tempo Publishing.4. GULLICK, J.M. 2000. A History of Kuala Lumpur 1856-1939. MBRAS5. HANCOCK T.H.H. 1949. Report of The Town Planning Department, Federation of Malaya. TG/F 56 (JPBD Library).6. HOME, ROBERT. 1997. Of Planting and Planning: The Making of British colonial cities. E & Spon.7. HUTCHINGS A 1986. ‘Comprehensive Town Planning Comes To South Australia’ in Hutchings A & Bunker R (eds.) With Conscious Purpose: A History Of Town Planning In South Australia. Wakefi eld Press, Adelaide.8. INTAN MAIZURA. 2005. The Calm of Kuala Kubu Baru. New Sunday Times, 17 April.9. KAMALRUDDIN SHAMSUDIN. 1996. Imbasan Sejarah Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa 1921-1996. JPBD Terengganu.10. KAMALRUDDIN SHAMSUDIN. 2005.‘Charles Compton Reade And The Introduction of Town Planning Service in British Malaya (1921-1929): Originating Planning Focus and Hostilities Within A Slump Economy’. 8th. International Conference of The Asian Planning Schools Association (APSA). Penang 16 Dec. 2005.11. LEE LIK MENG, ABDUL MUTALIP ABDULLAH AND ALIP RAHIM. 1990. Town Planning in Malaysia: History & Legislation.

12. HALL, P. 2001. Cities of Tomorrow : An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design In The Twentieth Century.13. READE, C. 1909. The Revelation of Britain: A Book for Colonials. Facsimile published by The Colonel Lights Gardens Historical Society Inc. Adelaide. 1998.14. READE , C. 1927. Memorandum regarding Town Planning in Federated Malay States and possible offi cial reaction against its further development and expansion. Public Record Offi ce CO 273/539/115. SYED ZAINAL ABIDIN IDID 1995.Pemeliharaan Warisan Rupa Bandar. Bandar Warisan Malaysia16. READE. C. Catalogue Second Town Planning and Housing Exhibition 1927. Available at JPBD Library, Kuala Lumpur.17. TATE, D. J. Muzaffar. (1987) Kuala Lumpur In Postcards 1900-1930. The Malay Mail, 2nd. Dec.1926. 18. The Malay Mail, 9th. June 1928. Town-Planning In Malaya. An American Commentary.Jeremiah Jenks Looks Round.19. VEALE, W.C.D. (Brig.). 1967. Charles Compton Reade, First Town Planner–South Australia. Australian Town Planning Jubilee Conference 1917-1967. Adelaide. South Australia. Australian Planning Institute.20. WARD, S.V. 2002. Planning The Twentieth-Century City: The Advanced Capitalist World. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

OTHER USEFUL HISTORICAL INFORMATION

1) Victoria Institution was relocated to Petaling Hill according to the layout by Charles Reade.

2) The Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur was re-sited by Reade to avoid future congestion along Birch Road.

3) The Gombak River was straightened by the town planning department. The existing town planning projet offi ce at Wisma Tun Sambanthan sits on the former Gombak River bed.

4) The Imbi Housing Scheme planned in 1924 by Reade was demolished about 1999 to make way for a privatisation project that never took place!

5) One interesting historical fact is that during Reade’s tenure, the town planning department was manned by engineers and surveyors with training provided by him. Such resulting ‘town planning works’, for example road widening, river realignment/ straightening, and various capital expenditures were routinely reported in the yearly town planning reports–a practice no longer applied in the current yearly town planning reports.


Feat

ures

BACKGROUND Poor community involvement approach during the planning process has frequently been cited as one of the problems that contributes to the underachievement of urban conservation projects in Malaysia. Notwithstanding the relatively recent efforts to conserve and model conservation practices against countries that have been successful in their conservation projects critics have argued that a holistic understanding of community involvement which is a prerequisite for effective conservation planning has been neglected. This has consequently led to its poor approach in decision-making during the planning process and there has been ample evidence to suggest fundamental principles and practices of getting the community to be involved have been ignored.

Evidence uncovered from the literature review converge to suggest weaknesses within the current community involvement during the planning process of conservation and the critical need for this problem to be addressed. This research is proposed in recognition of the need for an in-depth investigation of the factors that contribute to the weaknesses and the need for a knowledge-based approach to establish an effective framework for community involvement in Malaysian conservation projects.This research is presently in its initial stage. The following is presented to outline the context, focus, and signifi cance of this research study.

A RESEARCH ONURBAN CONSERVATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN MALAYSIA

ZAINAH [email protected]

Centre for the Built Environment School of Environment and DevelopmentSheffi eld Hallam University

feat

ures


AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCHThe aim of this research is:To establish a framework for community involvement in conservation planning and development in Malaysia.

In line with the aim of the research, the objectives of the research are:1. To identify the framework of community involvement for urban conservation movements;2. To make informed judgements by critically evaluating the differences between the Malaysian system and current best practices;3. To justify and determine the variables as identifi ed in (2).

LITERATURE FRAMEWORKCommunity Involvement within Urban Conservation It is the currently held belief that urban planning and conservation are complementary terms and urban planning that does not take conservation into account is incomplete. It depends on the existence of initiatives of powerful public and private developers to stimulate, direct, and control decisions during the planning process. Consequently, community

involvement has become an integral component of planning and decision-making within the urban conservation fraternity. These are the common views as expressed by scholars and practitioners (Cohen, 2000; Lichfi eld, 1996; Rydin, 1993; Dobby, 1977; Hall and Mc Arthur, 1998; Lichfi eld, 1996; Wilcox, 1994; Rydin 1993; Hampton, 1977; Karsperson, 1977; Thomas, 1996, Kennedy, 1993; Environment Protection Agency, 1996). They share the same view that consultation with the community has been the main focus in public sector management practices in developed countries. In Britain for example, the Skeffi ngton Report on public participation (1969) emphasised the rights of the public to be involved in planning process (Hampton, 1977).

Terms used like ‘conservation’, ‘community’ and ‘community involvement’ were investigated to establish the context of this research. They were based on researches conducted by various agencies e.g. Badan Warisan (The NGO for Conservation in Malaysia), ICOMOS, English Heritage, and the Burra Charter. Conservation is commonly used to describe the need to protect buildings from being derelict or

demolished. To ‘conserve’ does not only mean to improve existing structure but also to retain its original character.

Conservation must be recognised as a continuing dynamic process of planning the development of any area or a city, which acknowledges its history including its architecture, historical buildings, monuments, living historic towns, historic areas, archaeological sites, and cultural landscapes. It is also seen as a process of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural signifi cance. Social elements must be equally weighted with architectural and historical elements and qualities. Within the UK, this was exemplifi ed in its current conservation policy where the integration of the human factor, which is regarded as ‘dynamic communities’, is central in the conservation process.

There has been an ambiguity in defi ning ‘community’. Earlier, ‘public’ was identifi ed to include almost everyone by the Skeffi ngton Report, 1969 (Hillery, 1995; Lee and Newby, 1983 and Creed, 2003) but more recent views (Jones and Eyles, 1977; Macquarie University, 1991; Rosli, 1995; and Wilcox, 1994) identify


Feat

ures

community as all the people who live in a particular area, sharing characteristics in terms of cultural heritage. This encompasses social relationships, common economic interest, or the basis for political power. This change refl ects a cultural shift from recognising public as ‘general’ to recognising people as individuals with distinctive related values which must be acknowledged, understood and worked with cooperatively. In advocating this view the United Kingdom’s Offi ce of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2003 and Community Development Foundation (CDF), 2002 has defi ned ‘community’ as follows:• The whole population of the whole local authority area. This includes local residents and those coming into the area to work or make use of it.• The residents living in the local authority area.• The population of smaller areas, or people who associate in communities of interest, i.e. on a non-geographical basis.

Drawing from the above, this research shall defi ne community as the landowners, local people or

residents who are directly related to the project as they are the key component of the community. This is from the stand point that landowners are the legal proprietors of their lands and properties, while the residents or the local people are those living in the area or in close proximity to the project who share characteristics in terms of cultural heritage, social relationships, common economic interest, or the basis for political power. There are groups that are identifi ed as secondary component to community. These are organised groups that have fi nancial and professional resources who may concentrate on only certain aspects of the development and of gaining recognition or political points or national publicity on their philosophy.

‘Community involvement’ is a process of decision making which involve the community through public consultation or participation (DETR, 1998; CDF, 2002; Wilcox, 1994; Rosli, 1995; World Bank, 1993). It is implemented to infl uence, share, or control decision-making process which uses ‘representative’ and ‘responsive’ participative approaches. As stipulated in the statutory

document, public participation is required and needs to be considered by the planning authority in planning processes. t is in this process where the planners will try to anticipate the public needs.This is to synthesise them into a plan that meets the needs of everyone, while conforming to the national policy. The current common process requires community participation to fi t a timetable that is set. Conversely, more recent views (ODPM, 2003; Arnstein, 1969; Wilcox, 1994; Vanclay, 1995; Hall, 1998; DETR, 2000) suggest the expansion of this defi nition. They advocate the belief that participatory planning can be initiated by any party, the form it will take and the timetables can be negotiated and agreed amongst participants. This rationale is founded on the conviction that the pluralist society must be recognised and there are legitimate confl icts of interest that have to be addressed by the application of consensus-building methods.

The diagrammatic conceptualisation of the views taken in the above discussions are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

Photo: Badan Warisan (The NGO for Conservation in Malaysia)

Feat

ures


URBAN CONSERVATION WITHIN PLANNING PROCESS

INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES AND

GOVERNMENT POLICY LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Financial Framework

LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS

& MANAGEMENT PLAN

Identification of Property

Tax Provisions

Listed Buildings

Conservation Area

General Policy

Justification for Designation

Use

Demolition

Listed Building Consent

Flexibility

Conservation Area

The Planning Consideration

Description & Documentation

Implementation Control & Enforcement

Monitoring and Evaluation

Ancient Monuments

Archaeological Areas Other Areas

Grant-aid and linked schemes

Management Plan and Guidelines

PUBLIC/ COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Community Politicians Officers/Planners Business Local groups

Levels, Approach & Types/Techniques

Value, Community awareness, Multicultural

Sustainable Development & UNESCO, etc.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT FRAMEWORK

TECHNIQUES/ TYPES

DEFINITIONS

LEVELS/ DEGREE

Questionnaire surveys, interviews & telephone

Media Campaigns

Advisory Committees

Public Meetings& Hearings

Individual Interviews with Stakeholders

Community Involvement

Stakeholders

Theories

Community

Principles & Reasons for Community Involvement

Origins and History

Consultation

Models and Framework

Supporting

Deciding

Together

Acting Together

Focus Groups, Workshops & Forums

Select Technique

Check Decision Made

Determine the Time Table and Resources

Determine Participation Feedback

Identify Key Stakeholders

Maximise the Ability of Stakeholders

Identify the Issue

HISTORY AND MODELS

Define Objective

PLANNING STEPS

Evaluation Implementation Technique

Information

Volunteers opportues

Exhibitions & Displays

Newsletters, Posters & Brochures

Draft Documents (Plans & Policies)

Planning for Real & Participatory Appraisal

BEST & GOOD PRACTICE APPROACH

Best Practice Approach Critical Factors Essential Features - Policy &

Approach, Customer Focus, Process and Procedure, Performance Measurement

Concept Key Steps

CKey SC

y S

thth

s

M

Fig 1: Framework of Urban Conservation within the Planning

Fig 2: Framework of Community Involvement


Feat

ures

THE FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN URBAN CONSERVATIONThe conceptualisation to underline the framework for community involvement in urban conservation projects identifi ed by this research were the views of Hall and Mc Arthur (1998), Ashworth and Howard (1999), and Aplin (2002). The frameworks highlighted by these writers agree that it is the community, not the day-to-day managers, owns the heritage. They emphasise that the community provides political, economic, and tactical support and that it includes both actual and potential visitors. However, they also noted that the members of the community are not always aware that they are stakeholders. The framework outlines the key elements of the history, models, levels, and techniques engaged and the planning steps involved in conservation efforts. This is summarised in Fig. 2.

THE MALAYSIAN SCENARIOCommunity involvement in planning process for Malaysia has been examined in this research and the fi ndings are as follows:

Historical developmentThe Malaysian land use planning system, modelled from the English and Welsh Planning Act, 1971, is embodied in the Malaysian Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (Act 172). Act 172 consists of statutory requirements of development plan preparation, especially structure and local plans. The Act is also used as a guide for planning approval process by local authorities. However, after almost 30 years of its introduction, there are still apparent weaknesses in the Act, where it was found to be relatively undeveloped especially in terms of its procedures and guidelines as it has not evolved accordingly (Hashim, 1994 in Zainol, 2003; Taharim, 2002). Studies carried out by Shamsudin (1991), Taharim (2002), and Zainol (2003) which compared it to the UK planning system, found that it is only equivalent to the UK planning system in the 1970s. They added that the level of public participation within the planning process remains much to be desired. Whilst their research found that the public is receptive to the opportunities to participate in the planning process since the

1980s, contrary to the claims by the authorities, they found that public participation is still a diffi cult process to implement and the public views are often inadequately considered in the formulation of fi nal plans.

Conservation efforts have come into prominence in Malaysia over the last three decades and are generally given consideration in the planning process especially in the development plans preparation framework. Presently most conservation efforts are concentrated in the historical cities of Malacca and Penang. Being relatively in its early stage, conservation efforts were mostly undertaken through the combined efforts of NGOs and the authorities. However, studies on conservation (Ibrahim, 1995; Grant, 1992; Ibrahim, 1995; Ho, 1996; Muhammad, 1998; Ahmad, 1994; and Mohd. Yunus, 2000) highlighted the problem of non-specifi c legislation for conservation and ambiguity in conservation guidelines. Insuffi cient knowledge and poor identifi cation of the target group has often resulted in improper implementation of conservation practices. The key and interrelated issues to justify the above claims were found from the following:

INADEQUATE AND NON-SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE CURRENT LEGISLATION FOR CONSERVATIONThe problem of the inadequate and non-specifi c nature of legislation

within the existing conservation law was identifi ed in literature and studies researched (Grant, 1992; Ibrahim, 1995; Ho, 1996; Mohd Nor, 2002; Taharim, 2002; Abdul Hamid, 2002). Their common critic highlighted the lack of supplementary guidelines to interpret clauses within the Acts related to conservation. For example the TCP Act 172 outlines the need for ‘thoughtfulness and consideration to ensure that buildings of architectural and historic importance are effectively preserved as representative examples of their times’. Left to the discretionary interpretation of the parties responsible for conservation, this has resulted in a non-standardised method of planning, implementation and monitoring practices amongst the various agencies in different states and ministries in Malaysia.

Within the same context, the Antiquities Act, 1976, under the previous Ministry of Culture and Tourism (until April 2004) empowers the Museum Department to gazette any historical building which need to be conserved. However, they have limited power as conservation of the buildings falls under the jurisdiction of the local authorities.

Lack of coordination among various parties and the absence of one-stop agency responsible for conservation practices according to critics, has made the planning process and implementation of conservation initiatives complicated.

THE TOP-DOWN PROCESS OF PLANNINGThe emphasis that community involvement is an integral element in conservation efforts to successfully create a vibrant and sustainable urban area and the issue of top-down approach within the planning process which have trickled down to conservation practices have been frequently raised. The many examples of successful conservation projects in many countries show that they were carried out through the ‘bottom-up’ approach i.e. from the people of the community themselves which is not the case for Malaysia. This was identifi ed in the literature and studies undertaken by Ibrahim (1995), Ho (1996), Isa (2003), Shamsuddin (1991), Taharim (2002), and Shamsuddin (2000). Their common view is the


Feat

ures

problem that lies within the structure and the system of the planning approach within the whole country.

FUNDINGInadequate funding and poor management of funds for conservation are problems identifi ed by Abdul Hamid (2003), Mohammed (2003), Mahesan (2003), and Mohammad (1998). They identifi ed that these have been a major problem in carrying out conservation for heritage buildings and areas. They share the same view that Heritage Fund should be established to overcome issues related to conservation of heritage buildings and heritage areas. The fund could provide fi nancial assistance to property owners for repair or renovation works of their properties.

LACK OF EXPERTISEThe dearth of conservation expertise and skilled craftsmen in Malaysia is obvious (Ahmad, 1994; Abdul Hamid, 2003 and Muhammad, 1998). This was noted from the need to engage foreign experts and craftsmen for the various aspects of the conservation work as exemplifi ed in the projects carried out in Penang and Malacca. Research fi ndings conducted by Badan Warisan and other studies indicated that there will be a shortage of planners, architects, building surveyors, heritage property managers, contractors and artisans who are familiar with the nature of the materials used for repair or restoration works of heritage buildings.

POST COLONIAL AND MULTI-CULTURALISM ISSUESThe Malaysian urban built heritage is largely regarded as the product of a colonial plural society and has been the legacy of the British colonialist (Ahmad, 1994; Mohd. Yunus, 2000; Isa, 2003). The similarities of many Malaysian statutes and legislations governing the conservation process with the British system has provided Malaysia with the advantage of adopting some of the practices. However, contrary views to the question of ownership and purpose of conservation has always been debated.

Much concern on the need for a holistic approach towards conservation have been highlighted. Issues on conserving ‘hardware

historical components’ has also been raised. In response to this, several proposals have been made to include ‘software historical component’ through the creation of a national architectural identity using traditional and urban multicultural built forms. This was built on the justifi cation that the creation of a national identity and pride is crucial in a plural society like Malaysia, unlike in the monoculture of the western developed countries. The common view underpinning this belief is that owing to the differences in the social system, history, and culture of the diverse Malaysian society, it is inappropriate to introduce directly these Western conservation practices. If blueprints are adopted, it should only be used as a principal or starting point which over time, must be modifi ed to the needs and requirements of the multicultural Malaysia.

The serious concern to address this issue has been responded with the creation of a new ministry, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage in the government’s cabinet “reshuffl e” in April, 2004.

LACK OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND AWARENESSThe lack of public interest and awareness was raised (Muhammad, 1998; Ibrahim, 1995; Abdul Hamid, 2003; Mohammed, 2003) and the studies done on the Malacca Structure Plan and Local Plan; the UNESCO LEAP, 2002 programme on Cultural Management. The key factors commonly underlined by the studies were:

1. The lack of a systematic public participation exercise during the process of plan preparation.Even though public participation is mandatory in Act 172, where public exhibition and objection sessions are part of structure and local planning process, they are still inadequate. In current practice, public/community consultation is held after plan preparation rather than involving the public/community in the whole planning process. This tends to confi rm the view of Hofstede, 1997 that the culture of great power distance within Malaysian management culture has led to less consideration for individuals or bottom-up approach in management. Nevertheless, in

better improving the process, the Act’s amendment in 2001 (Act A1129) has included the measure of introducing the public participation process in the initial stage of development plans preparation for publicity and gathering initial opinions from the public. However, being rather new in its implementation, the initial publicity process is still experimental and the response from the public is largely unsatisfactory and apathetic.

2.Inadequate attention has been given towards implementation mechanism. Most of the studies and research conducted in the past recommended policies and guidelines for conservation area management where little emphasise has been given on the need to improve the implementation mechanism.

3. Public participation in development plans preparationEven though Act 172 has incorporated the element of public participation , the scope is limited to the preparation of development plans such as Structure and Local plans. There is a need to separate and detail out public participation or community involvement in conservation projects where at this moment it is not being incorporated in Act 172 or other relevant legislation. Based on the literature review, it is evident that there are weaknesses in current practice concerning community involvement in urban conservation projects in Malaysia. This has resulted from ineffectiveness of urban conservation project implementation. However a manual for public participation process for conservation study in Malacca has been produced to improve public participation in the plan making. The manual provides guidance for local authorities, city managers, and other implementing agencies to implement public participation in urban development and heritage conservation planning and management.


Feat

ures

THE RESEARCH QUESTIONDrawing from the critical review of the literature, it emerged to suggest that there are structural weaknesses within the current practice of implementation of community involvement in urban conservation projects in Malaysia. The consequence is the ineffective implementation of urban conservation projects. Solutions to the current situation lies within answers to important questions concerning conservation practices i.e “why has it been ineffective?”, “what are the factors contributed to the weaknesess?”, “who are the responsible parties?” and, “how to improve the current process?”. Answers to these questions are essential to ensure the effectiveness of community involvement in conservation projects.

CONCLUSIONIt is obvious that research or studies are still lacking in determining the level of weaknesses of the current approach used in community involvement conservation process in Malaysia. It is found from the literature review that the current practice is inadequate to promote effectiveness of community involvement in urban conservation projects. This has led to the consequent underachievement of conservation efforts.

A knowledge-based approach is needed to establish the framework; thus best practice is proposed for this research. This is drawn from the universal conviction that the knowledge based approach is under pinned by effective learning, relearning, adoption of innovation, and performance measures to ensure sustainability, competitiveness, and realisation of objectives outlined in the research.

This research is mindful of the uniqueness of Malaysian cultural values characterised by its plural society. Referring to the views of Taylor, 2003; Hofstede, 1997; Barrett, 1997 Landry, 2000 and Taylor, 2003, the approach to be adopted for the establishment of the framework entails the need to acknowledge the importance of value systems, embracing the character of Malaysian community and identity. The best practice framework as proposed in the study will be a guiding benchmark assimilating the unique values of the society.

Solutions to current situation lie within answers to important questions concerning conservation practices : Why has it been ineffective? What are the factors contributing to the weaknesess? Who are the responsible parties? How to improve the current process?

Feat

ures


References :Abdul Hamid, A. S. (2002). Text Speech at the 18th EAROPH World Planning Congress 2002, Kuala Lumpur.Kuala Lumpur.Kuala LumpurAbdul Hamid, A.S. (2003). Urban Regeneration through Conservation Initiatives:, Paper presented in at the Seminar Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia, 2003 (World Town Planning Day, 2003), Kuala Lumpur. Ahmad, G. (1994). Conservation of British Colonial Buildings Built Between 1800 and 1930 in Malaysia. Unpublished. PhD Dissertation, University of Sheffi eld.Andrae, S (1996) From Comprehensive Development to Conservation Areas. In Preserving the Past, ed M Hunter, pp 135 155. Alan Sutton, Stroud, Glos.Ashworth, G.J, 1997. Conservation as Preservation of as Heritage: Two Paradigms and Two Answers. Built Environment 23 2, pp. 92-102Arnstein, S.R. (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation. In Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4), p216-224Badan Warisan Malaysia, (1993). Urban Conservation: The Need for Guidelines and Legislation. Badan Warisan Malaysia (Unpublished).Barrett, B.F.D. (1997). Local Agenda 21 and Environmental Management in Japan and the United Kingdom: from Fragmentation to Integration. Unpublished. A PhD Dissertation, Oxford Brookes University. Buswell, R.J., 1984. Reconciling the Past with the Present: Conservation Policy in Newcastle upon Tyne. Cities 1 5, pp. 500-514CDF (Community Development Foundation), 2002. - a non-departmental public body supported by the Active Community Unit of Home Offi ce.Creed, N (2003). Community Involvement in Urban Regeneration - from Policy to Practice: SRB4 in Sheffi eld. Unpublished. MSc Dissertation Sheffi eld Hallam University.Cohen, N. (2001). Urban Planning Conservation and Preservation, Mc Graw-Hill Companies. IncDelafons, J (1997) Politics and Preservation. E & FN Spon, London.Department of the Environment and Department of National Heritage (1994) Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment. HMSO, London.Dobby, A. (1978). Conservation Planning.Hutchinsons of London.Grant, M. (1992). New Legislation for the Conservation of Historic Buildings: Report to the Federal Government of Malaysia, Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia.Government of Malaysia (1976) ACT 172: Town and Country Planning Act, 1976. Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur.Hampton, W. (1977). ‘Research into Public Participation in Structure Planning’, Chapter 3 in Sewell, A.R. & Coppock, J.T., 1977, ‘Public Participation in Planning’, John Wiley, London.pp 28-30Ho L.Y.C. (1996). Ho L.Y.C. (1996). The

Promotion Of Conservation Law And Practice In Malaysia: Some Lessons From The British Experience. Unpublished, M.Sc. Dissertation, Oxford Brookes University.: Some lessons From the British Experience.Unpublished, M.Sc. Dissertation, Oxford Brookes University.Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations - Software of the Mind. Institute for Reserach on Intercultural Cooperation (IRIC) University of Limburg at Maastricht, The Netherlands, McGraw-Hill.Ibrahim, Z. (1995). A Study in Machinami Conservation: Its Relation to Tourism Planning, A Comparative Study of Tsumago-juku, Japan and Malacca City, Malaysia, unpublished M.Eng. (Urban Planning) Dissertation, Chiba University.ICOMOS (1987) Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas: “The Washington Charter”. ICOMOS.Jarrar, Y.F. & Zairi, M. (2000). Internal Transfer of Best Practice for Performance Excellence: A global survey. Benchmarking: An International Journal. Vol.7, No.1, pp 239 -246Kok Liang, Lam (2002). Public Participations, Seminar on The Study on Improvement and Conservation Of Historical Urban Environment in Historical City of Melaka.Landry,C. (2000). The Creative City; A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.Larkham, P (1996) Conservation and the City.Routledge, London.Larkham, P., 1997. The Continued Rise of Conservation. Built Environment 23 2, pp.89-91Laws of Malaysia (1976). Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (Act 172). Government Publisher.Lichfi eld, N. (1996). Community Impact Evaluation. UCL Press, London and Pennsylvania.Lee Lik Meng et al (1990), Town Planning in Malaysia: History and Legislation. Report submitted for Kajian Perkembangan Sistem Perancangan Di Malaysia. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.Morris, W (1877) Restoration, reprinted by the Society for the protection of Ancient Buildings as their Manifesto. SPAB, London.Mohammad, A. (2003) Heritage Conservation: A Need for Legal Protection.Unpublished, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa, Malaysia.Muhammad, Z. (1998). Legislative and Institutional Framework for the Promotion of Historic Conservation in Malaysia, FDTCP Malaysia.Mohd. Yunus, A.H. (2000), Urban Conservation in Malaysia Processes and Management, unpublished PhD Dissertation, De Montfort University.Mohd Isa, A.F. (2002). Building Conservation in Malaysia: A Case Study of Conservation Maintenance Management of Ipoh Railway Station. Unpublished MA. Dissertation, Sheffi eld Hallam University.

ODPM (2003) Participatory Planning for Sustainable Communities. Issued in Planning. 12 Sept. 2003 in www.odpm.gov.my. 14/01/2004 pp. 3-9 & pp. 46.Price Waterhouse Coopers, (1999). Straight From the CEO, Dauphiniais G.W & Price C.(ed), Fireside, New York.Rosli, D. (1996). The incorporation of SIA in Environmental Assessment. unpublished PhD Dissertation, Newcastle upon Tyne University.Rydin, Y. (1993). The British Planning System - An Introduction, Macmillan, London.SAVE Britain’s Heritage (1998). Catalystic Conversion. London.Shamsuddin, K (1991). Towards Effective Public Participation At The report of Survey Exhibition Stage. A discussion paper presented to the FDTCP, Kuala Lumpur.Shamsuddin, K (2000). Public Participation Within A Representative Democracy. Habitat Malaysia. Issue no. 3 September 2000 Wilcox, David (1994). The Guide to Effective Participation. Partnership Books.Zainol, N.Y (2003) Environmental Planning and Management for Protected Areas in Malaysian Development Planning System. Unpublished. An Interim Assessment Report Submitted for the PhD, University of Salford.pp.1Zakaria, Kamaruddin (1994). Planning and Management for Cultural Property Conservation ACCU/UNESCO, Report on the Planning and Management of Cultural Heritage, Regional Training Seminar for Cultural Personnel in Asia Pacifi c, Tokyo, pp 65-66

Biodata :ZAINAH IBRAHIM is currrently completing her PhD research at Sheffi eld Hallam University (UK) in Heritage Development. She previously obtained her town planning degree from MARA Institute of Technology (ADTRP) and consequently Master in Engineering and Heritage from Chiba University. Her experience in the town planning services includes being a planner at Jengka Project Offi ce, Kuantan Project Offi ce, and Spatial Unit at JPBD headquarter. arter. arter

Feat

ures


INTRODUCTIONCulture and heritage are often considered as the fundamental aspects underpinning a country’s national identity and sovereignty. Cultural heritage including historic buildings, sites, cultures and other invaluable assets are the distinguished elements that encapsulate a nation’s soul and spirit. The cultural heritage of Malaysia and those of other Southeast Asian (SEA) countries are unique as they portray the vibrant, largely traditional communities thriving in a culture of tolerance, peace, diversity, and continuity in the midst of modernisation and social change. As items of national pride, cultural resources of many Southeast Asian countries have been promoted as tourism products to generate income. Abandoned historic buildings, for instance, have been restored and adaptive-reused for more lucrative uses including museums, galleries, restaurants, and information kiosks to attract tourists; a common practice found in many European cities.

Following in this footstep, the cultural heritage of Southeast Asia has been instrumental in the development and promotion of tourism industry in this region. The cultural heritage of these countries has also earned the distinction of being enlisted in the UNESCO’s World Heritage List.

This article discusses the concepts of cultural heritage with special references to the Southeast Asian countries. It also examines the defi nitions of cultural heritage from the perspectives of both UNESCO and ASEAN Declarations. Several key issues and challenges confronting the perpetuity of the multicultural heritage of this region are explored in the light of immediate threats and pressures of rapid urban development. Initiatives undertaken by the respective governing bodies and the grassroots in the Southeast Asian countries are also highlighted as a means to safeguard the cultural heritage for the benefi ts of the future generations.

CULTURAL HERITAGE OF SOUTHEAST ASIA: PRESERVATION FOR WORLD RECOGNITION

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DR. A GHAFAR AHMADEmail: [email protected]://www.hbp.usm.my/conservation

School of Housing, Building and PlanningUniversiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang

Feat

ures


DEFINITIONS OF CULTURAL HERITAGEAs cultures and heritage are irreplaceable, their particular forms and means of tangible and intangible expressions that constitute the community heritage values should be promoted as an essential aspect of human development.1 Culture is defi ned as the whole complex of distinct spiritual, intellectual, emotional,w and material features that characterise a particular society or social group and its way of life. Culture includes the arts and literatures as well as lifestyles, value systems, creativity, knowledge systems, traditions and beliefs.2 Cultural properties are often shared, learned, symbolic, transmitted across generations, adaptive, and integrated. On the other hand, heritage refers to “an inheritance or a legacy; things of value which have been passed from one generation to the next”.3 A wider defi nition of heritage encompasses the traditional notions of heritage as cultures, places and buildings as well as archives and records, and the impact of technology. Heritage, which relates to the remains of the past should be well preserved as national treasures and be cherished to posterity.

The concept of cultural heritage invariably differs from one nation or region to another. In a broad sense, it is perceived as movable and immovable assets of artistic, literary, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnological, scientifi c or technological values that embody the essence of a nation.4 Recognizing the signifi cance of cultural heritage and developing the relevant general criteria provide the rationale for subsequent management decisions pertaining to conservation, preservation, access and the delivery of related conservation programme.

The United Nations Educational and Scientifi c Organization (UNESCO) has since promoted various conventions and other instruments for the conservation of cultural heritage, including the following:5• Recommendation Concerning International Competitions in Architecture and Town Planning (1956);• Recommendations on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations (1956);• Recommendations Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites (1962);• Recommendations Concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works (1968);• Recommendations Concerning the Protection at National Level of the Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972);• Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) which introduced the concept of World Heritage Sites;• Recommendations Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (1976).

Specifi cally, the UNESCO’s Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) has defi ned cultural heritage by the following classifi cations:6• Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;• Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;• Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view.

Culture includes the arts and literatures as well as lifestyles, value systems, creativity, knowledge systems, traditions and beliefs

1 “The Nara Document on Authenticity” at http://www.hbp.usm.my/cad/Q&A/Charter/Q&Anara.htm

2 ASEAN Declaration On Cultural Heritage, Bangkok, Thailand, 24-25 July 2000, “Defi nition of Culture and Cultural Heritage” at http://www.aseansec.org/641.htm

3 Richard Prentice, (1993), “Tourism and Heritage Attraction”, London: Routledge, p. 5.

4 Andi Mappi Sammeng, (1997), “Balancing Tourism Development and Heritage Conservation”, p. 76.

5 JK Gillon, at http://gillonj.tripod.com/culturalheritagechartersandstandards/

6 United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: Adopted by the General Conference at Its Seventeenth Session, Paris, 16 November 1972”, pg. 1-2.


Feat

ures

Meanwhile, an International Charter for the Conservation of Monuments (or The Venice Charter) adopted by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 1956 marked an important milestone for the conservation movement.7 The Venice Charter emphasised the importance of respect for original building fabric, precise documentation of intervention, the signifi cance of contributions from all periods to the building character, and the maintenance of historic buildings. Other standards, charters, recommendations and conventions had followed suit in the interest of protecting and enhancing the historic and cultural environment. Some of the more outstanding documents include:• The Burra Charter, the Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Signifi cance (1981) which introduced the concept of cultural signifi cance relating to the aesthetic, historic, scientifi c or social value for past, present and future generations;• Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (ICOMOS New Zealand, 1992); • Preservation Charter for the Historic Towns and Areas of the United States of America (US ICOMOS, 1992); and • Guidelines for Education and Training in the Conservation of Monuments, Ensembles and Sites (1993).

Closer to home, ASEAN8 member countries through the ASEAN Declaration on Cultural Heritage outlined in July 2000 in Bangkok, Thailand have provided a defi nition of cultural heritage in a regional context. They have recognised cultural heritage as being inclusive of the following connotations:9• signifi cant cultural values and concepts;• structures and artifacts: dwellings, buildings for worship, utility structures, works of visual arts, tools and implements, that are of a historical, aesthetic, or scientifi c signifi cance;• sites and human habitats: human creations or combined human creations and nature, archaeological sites and sites of living human communities that are of outstanding value from a historical, aesthetic, anthropological or ecological viewpoint, or, because of its natural features, of considerable importance as habitat for the cultural survival and identity of particular living traditions;• oral or folk heritage: folkways, folklore, languages and literature, traditional arts and crafts, architecture, and the performing arts, games, indigenous knowledge systems and practices, myths, customs and beliefs, rituals and other living traditions;• the written heritage;• popular cultural heritage: popular creativity in mass cultures (i.e. industrial or commercial cultures), popular forms of expression of outstanding aesthetic, anthropological and sociological values, including the music, dance, graphic arts, fashion, games and sports, industrial design, cinema, television, music video, video arts, and cyber art in technologically-oriented and urbanised communities.

The ASEAN Declaration was underlined by a mutual understanding that cultural traditions were integral to the preservation of ASEAN intangible heritage, so much so that their conservation, documentation, and promotion rendered a high priority. Cultural discourse and awareness would further enhance an inter-cultural appreciation of ASEAN cultural heritage for sustaining regional peace and harmony. The protection of ASEAN cultural heritage, including curbing illicit trade and traffi cking would require a concerted effort among member countries supported by the international community.

7 ICOMOS is an international non-governmental organization that promotes the study of theory, methodology and technology of conservation as applied to monuments, historic areas and sites.

8 ASEAN is the acronym for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations representing Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.

9 “Defi nition of Culture and Culture Heritage” at http://www.aseansec.org/641.htm

10 World Heritage Centre, (2001), “Brief Descriptions of Sites Inscribed on the World Heritage List”, Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, p. 6-44.

MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN

Feat

ures

54

SOUTHEAST ASIAN CULTURAL PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LISTBased on the current working defi nitions and interpretations of cultural heritage, it is noteworthy that most Southeast Asian countries fi t well within this framework as they possess immense historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural values that are timeless and treasured by all, especially the tourists. The cultural heritage of several countries in this region have been inscribed on the UNESCO’s World Heritage List (WHL) to represent an outstanding universal value as well as a masterpiece of human creativity. A total of 14 cultural properties in Southeast Asia have been listed in the WHL by January 2001. They are located in 6 countries including Cambodia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand, and Vietnam (refer to Table 1). The following section describes the respective cultural properties in turn:10

Angkor, CambodiaAngkor is one of the most important archaeological sites in Southeast Asia. Stretching over 400 square km, including a forested area, the Angkor Archaeological Park contains the magnifi cent remains of the different capitals of the Khmer Empire dating from the 9th to 15th Century. They include the famous Temple of Angkor Wat and the Bayan Temple at Angkor Thom with their countless sculptural decorations.

Borobudur Temple Compounds, IndonesiaThis famous Buddhist temple, dating from the 8th and 9th Centuries, is located in central Java. It was built in three tiers; namely a pyramidal base with fi ve concentric square terraces; the trunk of a cone with three circular platforms; and at the top, a monumental stupa. The walls and balustrades are decorated with fi ne low reliefs, covering a total surface area of 2,500 square meters. Around the circular platforms are 72 openwork stupas, each containing a statue of the Buddha. The monument was restored with assistance from the UNESCO in the 1970s.

No Southeast AsianCountries Cultural Properties Year of

Inscription

1 Brunei

2 Cambodia a. Angkor 1992

3 Indonesia a.b.c.

Borobudur Temple CompoundsPrambanan Temple CompoundsSangiran Early Man Site

199119911996

4 Laos PDR a. Town of Luang Prabang 1995

5 Malaysia

6 Myanmar

7 Philippines a.b.

c.

Baroque Churches of the PhilippinesRice Terraces of the Philippine CordillerasHistoric Town of Vigan

19931995

1999

8 Singapore

9 Thailand a.

b.

c.

Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic TownsHistoric City of Ayutthaya and Associated Historic TownsBan Chiang Archaeological Site

1991

1991

1992

10 Vietnam a.b.c.

Complex of Hue MonumentsHoi An Ancient TownMy Son Sanctuary

199319991999

Table 1: Southeast Asian cultural properties inscribed on the UNESCO’s World Heritage List by January 2001

Source: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2001

Prambanan Temple Compound, IndonesiaBuilt in the 10th Century, Prambanan is the largest temple compound built in Indonesia. Rising above the centre of the last of these concentric squares are three temples decorated with reliefs illustrating the epic of the Ramayana. These temples were dedicated to the three great Hindu divinities (Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma) while three other temples were dedicated to the animals that served them.

Sangiran Early Man Site, IndonesiaExcavation works conducted from 1936 to 1941 led to the discovery of the fi rst hominid fossils at this site. Some 50 fossils of the Meganthropus palaeo and Pithecanthropus erectus/Homo erectus were found, constituting half of all known hominid fossils worldwide. Inhabited for the past one and a half million years, Sangiran is one of the key sites for the study of human evolution.

Town of Luang Prabang, Lao People’s Democratic RepublicLuang Prabang is an outstanding example of the fusions of traditional architecture and Lao urban structures with those built by the European colonial authorities in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Its unique, remarkably well-preserved townscape illustrates a key stage in the blending of these two distinct cultural traditions.

Baroque Churches of the Philippines, PhilippinesThese four churches, the fi rst of which was built by the Spanish in the late 16th century, are located in Manila, Santa Maria, Paoay and Miag-ao, respectively. Their unique architectural styles are reminiscent of the European Baroque, loosely reinterpreted by the local Chinese and Philippine craftsmen.

Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, PhilippinesFor 2,000 years, the high rice fi elds of the Ifugao in the Philippines have been planted with respect to the contours of the mountains. The fruits of knowledge were handed down from one generation to the next, while expressions of sacred traditions and the delicate social balance were articulated. The community has carved a landscape of profound beauty that expresses simple harmony between mankind and the environment.

VOL. 03 / ISSUE 01 / JANUARY 2006

Feat

ures

55

Historic Town of Vigan, PhilippinesEstablished in the 16th Century, Vigan is the best-preserved example of a planned Spanish colonial town in Asia. Its architecture refl ects the coming together of diverse cultural elements from the Philippines, China and Europe, resulting in a rare culture and townscape that have no parallel anywhere in East and Southeast Asia.

Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns, ThailandSukhothai was the capital of the fi rst Kingdom of Siam in the 13th

and 14th Centuries. It boasts several fi ne monuments that marked the beginnings of Thai architecture. The great civilisation of the Sukhothai Kingdom absorbed many infl uences and ancient local traditions; the rapid assimilation of all these elements is known as the ‘Sukhothai style’.

Historic City of Ayutthaya and Associated Historic Towns, ThailandFounded c. 1350, Ayutthaya became the second Siamese capital after Sukhothai. It was destroyed by the Burmese in the 18th Century. Its remains, characterised by the prang (reliquary towers) and gigantic monasteries, illustrate the grandeur of its past splendour.

Ban Chiang Archaeological Site, ThailandBan Chiang is considered as the most important prehistoric settlement so far discovered in Southeast Asia. It marks an important stage in human cultural, social, and technological evolutions. The site presents the earliest evidence of farming in the region as well as manufacturing and the use of metals.

Complex of Hue Monuments, VietnamEstablished as the capital of unifi ed Viet Nam in 1802, Hue was not only the political but also the cultural and religious centres under the Nguyen dynasty until 1945. The Perfume River winds its way through the Capital City, the Imperial City, the Forbidden Purple City, and the Inner City, giving this rare feudal capital an ambience of magnifi cent natural beauty.

Hoi An Ancient Town, VietnamHoi An Ancient Town is an exceptionally well-preserved example of a Southeast Asian trading port dating from the 15th to 19th

Century. Its buildings and street plan refl ect both indigenous and foreign infl uences, combined to produce this unique heritage setting.

My Son Sanctuary, VietnamBetween the 4th and 13th Centuries a unique culture that owed its spiritual origins to Indian Hinduism developed on the coast of contemporary Vietnam. This area is illustrated by the remains of impressive tower-temples located in a site that was the religious and political capital of the Kingdom of Champa for most of its existence.

It is clear from the discussion that most Southeast Asian countries possess a vast array of cultural resources that signify a legacy of great civilisations and value systems. To protect and promote the integrity of these cultural properties, it is imperative that these countries work together to establish national and regional inventories, databases and networks of academia, governments, archives, museums, galleries, art centres, training centres, mass media agencies, and others concerned with cultural heritage and their documentation, conservation and promotion.

NOMINATION OF GEORGETOWN FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE LISTMalaysia’s cultural property has yet to make an entry into the UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Much effort has been geared towards nominating the city of Georgetown, Penang for the listing. The nomination of Georgetown was based on its outstanding universal values depicting a fi ne example of the 18th to 20th

Century architectural ensemble of European, Malay, Chinese, and India origins. Such architectural fusions illustrate the legacy of multiculturalism of the Straits Settlements and the mercantile history of the Straits of Melaka. It also displays the intact streetscape and the matrix of socio-economic activities existing within the heritage city contending the course of modernisation and social change.

The nomination exercise has witnessed a total of 108 hectares of Georgetown inner city areas being proposed for conservation for its exceptional universal values. These areas have been categorized into 5 important zones as follows:11

• Cultural precinct: Chulia-Love- Muntri Street;• Historic commercial center: Little India and traditional business communities;

11 Badaruddin Mohamed and A Ghafar Ahmad, “Heritage Route Along Ethnic Lines: The Case of Penang”, paper presented at the Australia ICOMOS Conference on Making Tracks from Point to Pathway: The Heritage of Route and Journeys, Alice Springs, Australia, 23-27 May 2001.

12 “Penang’s Georgetown Historic Enclave Receives US$80,000 Boost From American Express” at http://home3.americanexpress.com/corp/latestnews/wmf2002-penang.asp

13 Walter Jamieson (2000), “The Challenges of Sustainable Community Heritage Tourism”, UNESCO Conference/Workshop of Culture, Heritage Management and Tourism, Bhaktapur, April 2000 at www.unescobkk.org/culture/archives/jamieson_day2.pdf

14 http://www.aseansec.org

15 Badaruddin Mohamed and Nikmatul Adha Nordin, “Pemasaran Strategik Produk-produk Pelancongan Malaysia”, paper presented at IPTA National Conference of Research and Development, Kuala Lumpur, 25 Sept. 2001.

16 Badaruddin Mohamed, et. al, “Malaysia as a Destination: In the Eyes of International Tourists”, IRPA Research Report, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, p. 61.

17 United Nations Sustainable Development, at http:www.un.irg/esa/sustdev/agenda21chapter28.html

18 “Health Situation in the South-East Asia Region, 1998-2000” at w3.whosea.org/health_situt_98-00/c2.htm-45k

19 “Population Trends Pose New Challenges for Asia - ADB Report” at www.adb.org/Documents/News/2002/nr2002126.asp


Feat

ures

• Waterfront business-fi nancial district: Banking, shipping and corporate business;• Mosque and clan house enclave: Religious buildings, clan houses, and small businesses;• Market and shopping precinct: Traditional retail and neighbouring markets.

In August 2002, Georgetown came into the limelight after being listed in the World’s 100 Most Endangered Sites by the World Monuments Watch (WMW) of the World Monuments Fund (WMF) based in the USA. The reason being the city’s historic buildings were mostly at risk. The WMF’s List of 100 Most Endangered Sites is issued biennially to identify any historic sites that face signifi cant peril. Nominations were solicited from various ministries of culture, US embassies and related international and local preservation bodies. WMW draws attention to the plight of the world’s most endangered sites and assist in their protection. Following the exposure, Georgetown had received a grant of US$80,000 from The American Express Foundation for the preservation of the city’s cultural historic enclaves.12

Nonetheless, historic buildings in Georgetown have largely survived the decades amidst rapid development and urbanisation. Some buildings are structurally intact, whilst others are dilapidated and left abandoned. Till this date, only 11 out of thousands of buildings and monuments in Penang have been gazetted under the Antiquities Act 1976; a condition that provides these buildings some protection and encourages their preservation. Initiatives should be undertaken to gazette more historic monuments and buildings in Georgetown for their integrity and perpetuity.

CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISMTourism, including the cultural heritage segment, has been identifi ed as one of the key growth industries over the next decades. International tourism arrival worldwide has been increasing by about 4.3% per year and that spending has been rising by about 6.7% per year, resulting in issues of managing tourism growth and sustaining economic development.13 Cultural heritage

tourism, in particular is fast becoming one of the leading tourism sectors in Southeast Asia. This region is endowed with vast, ancient cultural heritage that has shaped much of the lives and value systems of the local populace. The inclusion of 14 Southeast Asia’s cultural properties in the WHL has showcased unique cultural traditions including traditional human settlements and prominent architecture that helped boost the region’s heritage tourism market. In 1999, 19.73 million foreign tourists from world top markets including the USA, Canada, China, Japan, Holland, France, Austria, Germany, Italy, and the UK had visited the ASEAN countries.14 A continuous infl ux of foreign tourists into this region has increased job opportunities for the locals in various sectors including accommodation, tour agencies and guides, handicrafts, and restaurants.

Malaysian tourism has also enjoyed an impressive average growth of 9.26% between 1981 and 2000, making tourism the second most important sector of the country’s economy. Despite the scare of September 11, 2001 over 12.7 million tourists had visited Malaysia in 2001, bringing over US$6.3 billion in revenue, up US$1.8 billion compared to the 2000 fi gures.15

International tourist arrival in Malaysia has also grown signifi cantly. In 2002, Malaysia recorded a 54% growth in tourist arrival due to intensive promotional blitz worldwide. A recent research has further revealed that foreign tourists had visited Malaysia mostly for its cultural and historical uniqueness.16

Cultural heritage tourism is unique as it offers the opportunity to portray and experience the past in the present through an endless possibilities of interpretive and presentation techniques. It allows the local community to defi ne its culture and narrate its own story. Cultural heritage tourism has several objectives to be achieved within the context of sustainable tourism development. They include conservation of cultural resource; articulate interpretation of resource; authentic experiences for visitor; as well as understanding the tourism framework and the impact on communities and regions.17 Tourism in Southeast Asia continues to play an important role in community

economic development despite a signifi cant pressure placed on heritage resources. Issues of urbanisation, poverty, and lack of funding present a management challenge for cultural heritage tourism in Southeast Asia.

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE Strategies aimed at promoting cultural heritage as Southeast Asian’s critical tourism asset have encountered many obstacles. They include the lack of resources for heritage inventory and assessment, inadequate regulative frameworks, poor understanding of building materials; low commitment to maintenance of heritage assets, as well as the paucity of training initiatives and limited employment opportunities in this sector. Such problems were further compounded by the realities of globalisation with rapid economic development, continuous urbanisation and changing population dynamics. Several key issues and challenges facing the sustainability of multicultural heritage of Southeast Asia are discussed as follows:

Urbanisation and Demographic TrendsThe World Population Prospects, The 2000 Revision report has stated that the world population would reach 6.1 billion by mid-2000 with a growth rate of 1.2% per year18; which translates to an annual addition of 77 million people. Six countries account for nearly 50% of the annual increase, namely India (21%), China (12%), Pakistan (5%), Nigeria (4%), Bangladesh (4%), and Indonesia (3%). By the same token, the Southeast Asian population, generally at relatively younger median age, is estimated to increase signifi cantly over the decades.

Urbanisation is a signifi cant trend in cities of the developing world. About 120 million people across the globe have moved to the cities, mainly for economic gains, and a similar pattern has been observed in the industrializing countries of Southeast Asia.19

Greater urbanisation demands high investments in urban infrastructure including housing, transportation, and water and sewerage services. National authorities are also faced with challenges in environmental protection to ensure the provision of good air and water quality, as well as overall quality of life.


Feat

ures

Heritage cities typically represent places of lively social life and passionate cultural events. The urban lifestyle is part and parcel of cultural heritage that should be sustained for future generations. Nonetheless, factors of urbanisation, demographic change, over-consumerism, changing lifestyles, and consumption patterns among city dwellers have imposed a major turnabout in the way of life in Southeast Asian cities. Many old historic areas in the region are in danger of being demolished in the name of progress. Research in Georgetown has shown that many single, young urban professionals had fl ed the heritage inner city because they considered life there was rather dull.20 They had preferred condominium living in the urban fringes equipped with swimming pools and air-conditioning, rather than staying in shophouses with air-well ventilation. They had also frequented Starbucks’s coffee more so than the traditional coffee shops at the corner. Wet market and sundry shops were also losing customers to upbeat hypermarkets. Consequently, many pre-war historic buildings in Georgetown under the now defunct Rent Control Act were left abandoned.21 Such profound changes in contemporary urban society have affected the pulse and rhythm of the heritage cities in Southeast Asia.

Poor Forms of GovernanceThere is a growing recognition that conservation of cultural heritage is a shared responsibility among all levels of government, proponents, and the community at large. There has been a signifi cant shift from simply making an inventory of heritage resources towards an integrated and holistic approach to heritage management. International experiences have shown that signifi cant momentum and resources could be generated from interactions between heritage stakeholders, including those in the public, non-profi t, and private sectors.22 Heritage stakeholders should revitalise their mandates and strengthen their commitment, to include women and youths to complement conventional approaches to heritage stewardship. Citizens and heritage communities may well benefi t from good heritage networks; many of which have spawned from the growth of Internet and ICT. However, the situation in many developing

countries, including Southeast Asian is rather dismal. Policies, institutions and infrastructure for heritage stewardship, both governmental and non-governmental in Thailand, for example have remained ambiguous and haphazard.23

The roles of traditional forms of cultural stewardship such as mosques, churches, temples, monasteries and the waqf need to be revised so that stakeholders take on the shared responsibilities of care, conservation, maintenance, and usage of heritage buildings and the surroundings. The governments hence play a pivotal role in recognising the potentials of private and public sector enterprises in governing cultural heritage.24 The issue is to prioritise heritage conservation as a key element in city development, and to establish a framework for effective implementation.

Inappropriate Management ProcessThere has been a growing recognition of the role of cultural heritage as an engine of urban renewal and local community development, which may well contribute to an enhanced quality of life, increased investment and the development of sustainable economic ventures including tourism. It is critical to integrate cultural heritage conservation within a broader framework of sustainable development. This holistic approach entails the reuse, redevelopment, and regeneration of cultural heritage assets, as well as their integration into the overall urban development process. Nonetheless, the task of conserving cultural heritage has remained a paramount challenge to the governments, the private sector, and local communities.

A critical aspect in this approach is to conduct good documentation and preservation of cultural properties.25

Publications in a variety of formats include books, reports, brochures, guides, maps, and audio-visual products should be undertaken to target different users. Governments need to support research and documentation efforts by universities, research institutions, trusts, and other private commissions involved in heritage conservation. Support can be in the forms of providing educational courses, personnel training, research activities, establishing museums, and exhibitions.

20 Loh Gak See (2001), “Consumption Patterns and Retail Activities in George Town”.

21 Lai Khoon Hon (2000), “Retail Activities in George Town”.

22 Willian S. Logan (1999), “Zoning and Land-Use Codes for Historic Preservation; The Melbourne Example”.

23 Yongtanit Pimonsathean, (1999), “Recent Efforts in Local-Based Urban Conservation in Thailand”.

24 Hari Srivinas (1999), “Prioritizing Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacifi c Region: Role of City Governments” at http://www.gdrc.org/heritage/heritage-priority.html

25 “Protection of Cultural Heritage in Southeast Asia” at http://icom.museum/theme1.html

26 A Ghafar Ahmad (1997), “British Colonial Architecture In Malaysia 1800-1930”.

27 Nurwati Badarulzaman, (2001), “ Traditional Retailing in the Historic City of George Town, Penang, Malaysia”.


Feat

ures

Another important aspect in cultural heritage conservation is measuring the potential impacts of cultural heritage tourism development on the local communities. Despite considerable resource constraints, it is essential for the community to assess its effort in conserving cultural heritage as well as in improving the quality of life. Supportive measures and actions should be devised to designate the “cultural zones” within the area, produce integrated master plans for the area, eliminate inappropriate land uses, develop design guidelines and urban streetscape, and restore heritage structures. All actions should be carried out through smart partnership and collaborations between all levels of government and other stakeholders.

Lack of Funding ResourcesFor decades cultural heritage conservation has been a low priority for governments throughout the Southeast Asia region and public sector investment in this domain has fallen far short of real needs. Most Southeast Asian countries are also faced with the scarcity of funding from international agencies. Moreover, the pricing structure of cultural heritage-based tourism is often vague, unlike other services or other forms of tourism. A lack of established benchmark has resulted in poor guidance in this area. Consequently, related cultural heritage business and services are at the danger of pricing themselves out of the market, or at times undercharging. As such, it is essential that local communities secure other forms of creative fi nancing to increase the capacity and sustainability of their cultural heritage properties.

The challenge at hand is to stimulate, facilitate, strengthen, and forge more innovative private and public sector partnerships to generate resources to champion the cause of cultural heritage. The World Monuments Fund (WMF), for instance, leads the way in building new alliances to debate on key issues in cultural heritage conservation and to foster new connections and networking. The WMF has launched a regional network of participation, appraisal, and partnership for heritage in Asia.

Ineffective Enforcement of Legislations Establishing an enabling institutional and policy framework goes a long way in creating the incentives necessary to prioritise cultural heritage conservation. Having effective laws, legislations, rules, and building codes are essential, alongside developing special conservation plans and zoning controls, and integrating them into the city overall master plans. Special units, commissions or agencies dealing with cultural heritage conservation should be set up within the existing local organisational and governance structures with full legislative, administrative, and fi nancial supports. Whilst conservation acts and enactments have been established, their enforcements have somewhat dwindled. The demolition of the historic Metropole Hotel (built in 1900) in Georgetown, Penang in 1993 was a classic example of the inadequacy of the Malaysian laws to protect heritage buildings.26 Despite the adoption of design guidelines, controversies still surround building heights and plot ratios allowances in the conservation zones. Such situation has caused substantial stagnations in investment fl ows in the inner city areas, affecting tourism promotion, infrastructure development, and job generation.27

At a global level, cases of illicit traffi c and looting of cultural heritage have also increased signifi cantly all over the world. Some of the contributing factors include the globalisation of the marketplace, including the arts; and rapid tourism growth, concerted efforts are much needed to protect the cultural heritage resources to put an end to illegal trade of cultural artifacts in the Southeast Asia region.

Expectations of the New TouristsVisitations to places of historical signifi cance have gained much importance in the trend of ‘new tourists’ worldwide. Buildings, sites, and items of signifi cant historical background intrigue these tourists. Such emerging trend has enhanced the inherent value of historic buildings, prompting the authorities to upkeep their heritage assets. Today’s new tourists assume a different approach in their travelling behaviour. Their expectations differ from those travelling solely for leisure. They demand much more than visiting a place for the sake of visiting. Rather

than observing cultures confi ned within galleries, these tourists prefer living and experiencing the local cultures and indulging in the sense of the place with the local community.

This new dimension in the heritage tourist segment requires more an explicit display and demonstration of the local cultures and festivities on the city streets. However, it is necessary to develop a good understanding of the promise of cultural heritage tourism as well as its limitations, at the brink of growing threats posed by excessive mass tourism fl ows. As tourism is mainly a profi t-generating industry, it is imperative that the governments as policy makers reconcile the quantitative measures with the aim of preserving the integrity of historical ensembles and sites.

Lack of Public AwarenessInternational models for developing sustainable approaches to safeguard heritage have shown that cultural heritage conservation is related to a number of factors. One key factor is the level of public knowledge, awareness, and commitment to heritage.

In order to heighten public awareness, programmes and projects on awareness-building and heritage appreciation should be set up at the local level to inculcate strong heritage values amongst the community. Cultural heritage properties, particularly old buildings and others of architectural value, should be revitalised and revive to ensure that the buildings are economically viable and enhance the city’s character. The public sector, NGOs, and citizen groups play an instrumental role in pioneering conservation-related initiatives, generating ideas, fostering civic pride, as well as assisting in fi nancial investments. All stakeholders should learn to deal with confl icts and to explore the creative use of partnerships to share knowledge, as well as risks, in cultural heritage tourism development.

City leadership in particular needs to rally full grassroots support to enhance public participation and heritage awareness. The ethic of participation makes it imperative for the community to be involved in cultural heritage conservation as a


Feat

ures

key ingredient of local development. Necessary mechanisms and process of heritage conservation should be developed and propagated so that cultural heritage properties may be transmitted to the future generations boasting full authentic quality.

Environmental DegradationHeritage cities throughout the world are not only centres of civilisation, but also main tourist destinations. Physical and socio-economic transformations that occur in the historic cities often lead to substantial environmental concerns. Man-induced factors in most urbanising cities have resulted in environmental degradations including deforestation, soil erosion, land reclamation, traffi c congestion, and water and air-borne chemical pollutants from automobiles and factory emissions. Heritage buildings in Georgetown, for instance, have been cautioned against the risks of heavy traffi c vibrations and air pollution. High concentrations of salt deposits and acute problems of rising damp diagnosed in heritage buildings in Georgetown have also raised a major concern regarding the British architectural legacy by the sea.

Whilst Southeast Asia is a region of great antiquity and treasures of the past, it has been unfortunate

to observe fl uctuating interests in cultural heritage protection.28 The social and cultural environments as well all material and non-material remnants of our history should all be enlisted as environmental priorities, to be protected alongside the natural environment. Southeast Asian nations should realise the approach of smart partnerships and strategic alliances between the public and private sectors, NGOs, and the community towards this new approach in environmental protection. The governments should introduce effective environmental legislations that propagate good environmental values amongst the community.

It is clear from the discussion that Southeast Asian countries are faced with a multitude of issues and challenges in protecting their cultural heritage to posterity. All conservation stakeholders need to work together to achieve sustainable planning and management of cultural heritage, including for tourism ventures. Leaderships of these countries need to reaffi rm their stand to materialise the fruits of the ASEAN Declarations (2001) to ensure that their cultural properties are handed over to the next generation in their authentic forms.

28 Anand Panyarachun, (1996), “Environmental Priorities in Southeast Asia”.

Supportive measures and actions should be devised to designate the “cultural zones” within the area, produce integrated master plans for the area, eliminate inappropriate land uses, develop design guidelines and urban streetscape and restore heritage structures.


Feat

ures

CONCLUSIONSThe rich cultural heritage of Southeast Asia has been recognised as an asset that attracts visitors and generates income for this region Revitalisation of heritage structures and precincts, and the development of cultural heritage tourism initiatives have fostered strong community ownership and helped ensure the values of cultural heritage. Innovative interpretations of historic sites, public art programmes, and special cultural events are the essential ingredients of a successful agenda for cultural heritage tourism. Nonetheless, planning and management of cultural heritage tourism in Southeast Asia have met with several shortcomings. The major challenge has been to work effectively with all stakeholders in cultural heritage to understand the needs and constraints of the host communities, whilst at the same time upholding the principles of conserving cultural heritage.

The cultural heritage tourism segment in Southeast Asia refl ects the need for strong government commitment and leadership to enforce effective regulations to protect cultural heritage from development threats. Several initiatives have been employed including fairs, exhibitions, seminars and workshops to gather more public awareness on the importance of cultural heritage conservation for tourism. The ASEAN symbol of solidarity should be realised through the establishment of smart partnerships for the transfer of know-how, technology, and experience in managing the vibrant cultural heritage cities. Community participation at various levels would serve well in preserving the cultural fabric that shape and mould the notable heritage milieu of the Southeast Asian cities. In time, it is hoped that the intrinsic meanings and values of cultural heritage conservation would transcend all stakeholders, tourists, the NGOs, local communities as well as the younger generations.

The ASEAN symbol of solidarity should be realised through the establishment of smart partnerships for the transfer of know-how, technology and experience in managing the vibrant cultural heritage cities.


Feat

ures

Biodata : Born in Johore, Malaysia in October 1964, Associate Professor Dr. A. Ghafar Ahmad has a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA (1986), Master of Architecture in Urban Design from Kent State University, Ohio, USA (1988); and a PhD in Building Conservation from University of Sheffi eld, United Kingdom (1993).Associate Professor Dr. A. Ghafar Ahmad is currently lecturing at the School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia in Penang. Apart from being actively involved in a number of conservation committees and activities in Malaysia, he has also been a building conservator to a number of conservation projects in Penang, Selangor and Pahang. He has written and edited several books on heritage buildings and produced videos on the issues of building and urban conservation in Malaysia. He has also written several academic articles in journals and magazines, presented many papers concerning heritage conservation both locally and internationally, as well as carried out many researches in the fi elds of building conservation, urban conservation and heritage tourism.In January 1999, Associate Professor Dr. A. Ghafar Ahmad won the Historic Mosques Preservation Award in the Building Restoration Category from the Ministry of Higher Education, Saudi Arabia.

References :1. Ahmad, A.G., British Colonial Architecture in Malaysia 1800-1930, Kuala Lumpur: Museums Association of Malaysia, 1997.2. Ahmad, A.G., Restoration of Old Town Hall, Georgetown, Penang, paper presented at the Islamic International University, (2004) 3. ASEAN Declaration On Cultural Heritage,Bangkok, Thailand, 24-25 July 2000, “Defi nition of Culture and Cultural Heritage” at //www.aseansec.org/641.htm4. Badarulzaman, N., Traditional Retailing in the Historic City of George Town, Penang, Malaysia,paper presented at the Work, Employment and Society Conference (WES 2001): Winning and Losing in the New Economy, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, 11-13 September 2001.5. Boniface, P. & Fowler, P.J., Heritage and Tourism in the Global Village., London: Routledge, 1993.6. Engelhardt, R.A. Heritage for the Future: The Challenges of Preserving the Historic Environment in the Rapidly Modernizing Context of Asia, 1998. Available at: www.tobunken.go.jp/~kokusen/japanese/7SEMINAR/preprint.html.7. Gillon, J.K., “Cultural Heritage Charters and Standards” at http://gillonj.tripod.com/culturalhStandards” at http://gillonj.tripod.com/culturalhStandards”eritagechartersandstandards/8. Heritage Conservation. Available at: www.hbp.usm.my/conservation9. “Health Situation in the South-East Asia Region, 1998-2000” at w3.whosea.org/health_situt_98-00/c2.htm-45k10. Jamieson, W. “The Challenges of Sustainable Community Heritage Tourism”, UNESCO Conference/Workshop of Culture, Heritage Management and Tourism, Bhaktapur, April 2000 at ww.unescobkk.org/culture/archives/jamieson_day2.pdf 11. Khoo, S. N., Streets of Georgetown Penang: An Illustrated Guide to Penang’s City Streets & Historic Attractions, Penang: Janus Print & Resources, 1993.12. Lai, K.H., Retail Activities in George Town, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, unpublished Masters thesis, 1999.13. Logan, W. S., “Zoning and Land-Use Codes for Historic Preservation; The Melbourne Example”, paper presented at The Economic of Heritage, UNESCO Conference/Workshop on the Adaptive Re-use of Historic Properties in Asia and the Pacifi c, Penang and Melaka Malaysia, 9-16 May 1999.14. Loh G. S., “Consumption Patterns and Retail Activities in George Town”, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, unpublished Masters thesis, 2001.15.Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP),Design Guidelines For Conservation Areas in the Inner City Area of George Town, Penang, Pulau Pinang: MPPP, 1987.16. Mohamed, B., “Heritage Tourism in Penang”,paper presented at Workshop on the Listing of Tentative Heritage Sites of Melaka & Penang, Melaka, 28-29 September 2000.17. Mohamed, B. and Ahmad, A. G., “Heritage Route Along Ethnic Lines: The Case of Penang”,paper presented at the Australia ICOMOS Conference on Making Tracks from Point to Pathway: The Heritage of Rroute and Journeys, Alice Springs, Australia, 23-27 May 2001.18. Mohamed, B., Ahmad, A. G. & Badarulzaman, N., “Challenges of Historic Cities in the New Millennium: Lessons from Malaysia”,paper presented at Future Cities Symposium, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 10-12 November 2001.19. Mohamad, B. and Nikmatul A.N.,“Pemasaran Strategik Produk-produk Pelancongan Malaysia”, paper presented at IPTA National Conference of Research and Development, Kuala Lumpur, 25 Sept. 2001.

20. Mohamed, B. et. al, “Malaysia as a Destination: In the Eyes of International Tourists”,IRPA Research Report, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, 2003.21. Nuryanti, W., ed., Tourism and Heritage Management, Yogyakarta: Gadja Mada University Press, 1997.22. Panyarachun, A., Environmental Priorities in Southeast Asia, Keynote Address at the International Conference on Environmental Priorities in Southeast Asian Nations Shangri-La Hotel, Bangkok, January 10, 1996 at http://www.anandp.in.th/en_speech/e090004.pdf.23. “Penang’s Georgetown Historic Enclave Receives US$80,000 Boost From American Express” at : home3.americanexpress.com/Express” at : home3.americanexpress.com/Express”corp/latestnews/wmf2002-penang.asp24. Pimonsathean, Y., “Recent Efforts in Local-Based Urban Conservation in Thailand”,paper presented at The Economic of Heritage, UNESCO Conference/Workshop on the Adaptive Re-use of Historic Properties in Asia and the Pacifi c, Penang and Melaka Malaysia, 9-16 May 1999.25. “Population Trends Pose New Challenges for Asia - ADB Report” at www.adb.org/for Asia - ADB Report” at www.adb.org/for Asia - ADB Report”Documents/News/2002/nr2002126.asp. 26. Prentice, R., “Tourism and Heritage Attraction”, London: Routledge, 1993.“Protection of Cultural Heritage in Southeast Asia” at //icom.museum/theme1.html27. Sammeng, A. M., “Balancing Tourism Development and Heritage Conservation”, in Nuryanti, W., ed., Tourism and Heritage Management, Yogyakarta: Gadja Mada University Press, 1997.28. Srivinas, H., “Prioritizing Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacifi c Region: Role of City Governments”,1999, at http://www.gdrc.org/heritage/heritage-priority.html.29. “The Nara Document on Authenticity”at: www.hbp.usm.my/cad/Q&A/Charter/Q&Anara.htm30. United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),“Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage”, adopted by the General Conference at its Seventeenth Session, Paris, 16 November 1972.31. United Nations Sustainable Development, at http:www.un.irg/esa/sustdev/agenda21chapter28.html 32. World Heritage Centre, “Brief Descriptions of Sites Inscribed on the World Heritage List”,Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2001.


Feat

ures

DEFINITION

WIKIPEDIA’S HERITAGE: Heritage refers to something which is inherited from one’s ancestors. It has several different senses, including:• Cultural Heritage, a nation’s historic monuments, museum collections, etc; • Natural Heritage, a nation’s fauna and fl ora, natural resources, and landscape;• Tradition, customs and practices inherited from ancestors; • Virtual Heritage, an ICT work dealing with cultural heritage.• Inheritance of physical goods after the death of an individual;• Biological Inheritance of physical characteristics; and• Birthright, something inherited due to the place, time, or circumstances of someone’s birth.

PHILOSOPHIES & CONCEPTS:

• CONSERVATION: to recapture a sense of the past and to preserve, conserve and restore as much of the existing fabric of its original condition or situation.• PRESERVATION: deals with keeping cultural property from being harmed or decayed.• RESTORATION: refers to the revival of the original concept and fabric of the building to its original or earlier known state.• REHABILITATION: to make old buildings usable again.• REPLICATION: the approach of imitating what previously existed.• RELOCATION: for economic reasons, buildings or monuments are relocated or moved in whole or parts to be reassembled on other sites.

IMMANUEL KANT’S (1974- 1804) MOST ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION TO PHILOSOPHY IS HIS “COPERNICAN REVOLUTION,” THAT, AS HE PUTS IT, IS THE REPRESENTATION THAT MAKES THE OBJECT POSSIBLE RATHER THAN THE OBJECT THAT MAKES THE REPRESENTATION POSSIBLE. THIS INTRODUCED THE HUMAN MIND AS AN ACTIVE ORIGINATOR OF EXPERIENCE RATHER THAN JUST A PASSIVE RECIPIENT OF PERCEPTION. SOMETHING LIKE THIS NOW SEEMS OBVIOUS: THE MIND COULD BE A TABULA RASA, A “BLANK TABLET,” NO MORE THAN A BATHTUB FULL OF SILICON CHIPS COULD BE A DIGITAL COMPUTER. PERCEPTUAL INPUT MUST BE PROCESSED, i.e . RECOGNISED, OR IT WOULD JUST BE NOISE - “LESS EVEN THAN A DREAM” OR “NOTHING TO US,” AS KANT ALTERNATIVELY PUTS IT.

HERITAGE IS A DIRTY WORD TO SOME. NOT REFERRING TO UNKEMPT DERELICT BUILDING OF COURSE. THERE ARE ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT IN A CONTENTION. A PROPONENT, AN OPPONENT, AND THE REST ARE JUST FENCE SITTERS. SO WHAT IS HERITAGE ? ISN’T HERITAGE A SUBJECTIVE SUBJECT (NEVER MIND THE ECHO) NEVERTHELESS THERE ARE COMMON WORDS AND FAMILIAR TERMS THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH HERITAGE AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS PALAVER.

TO TOWN PLANNERS, DELVING INTO THE WORLD OF HERITAGE WILL INVOLVE COMING ACROSS THE FOLLOWING WORDS AND PHRASES.

READ ON!

IN HERITAGE WE TRUST

JAMIL [email protected]

Reasearch and Development Division, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia

Pala

ver


• ADAPTIVE RE-USE: To change the main function of a building while maintaining its original form and character.• MAINTENANCE: Continuous care and protection of a cultural heritage.

CATEGORIES OF URBAN CONSERVATION: • Conservation of Building(s) (building restoration, facade improvement, walkway/verandah reinstatement, building signs, etc.) • Conservation of Area(s) (enhancement of historical, architectural and cultural values, controlled new development, facadism or facsodomy) • Conservation of Culture(s) (retaining the unique cultural heritage)

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF URBAN CONSERVATION (AFTER DR GAFFAR)• All heritage conservation work, whether it be of a building, monument, or site should be based upon and preceded by suffi cient historical research, site analysis and documentation to identify and safeguard fully the heritage values to be conserved.• The evolution of the structure(s) and the site should be respected. The contributions of all periods are important to the historical development and merit retention. Decisions about appropriate levels of intervention shall be based upon the heritage values of each contribution.• Long-term protection of the historic resource should be balanced with user requirements and future resource management goals should be identifi ed prior to undertaking any work.• The approach to all heritage conservation projects should be one of minimal intervention to ensure the maximum preservation of the existing and authentic physical fabric and retention of the signs of age.• Conjecture and the falsifi cation of building elements should be avoided in all heritage conservation projects.• A well-defi ned maintenance plan should be clearly established in order to prepare for appropriate level of maintenance and care upon completion.

INTERNATIONAL HERITAGE CONVENTIONS, COMMITTEES AND HERITAGE SOCIETIES:

ATHENS CHARTER (1931)The Athens Conference of 1931, organised by the International Museums Offi ce, established basic principles for an international code of practice for conservation.

VENICE CHARTER (1964)The Venice Charter stresses the importance of setting, respect for original fabric, precise documentation of any intervention, the signifi cance of contributions from all periods to the building’s character, and the maintenance of historic buildings for a socially useful purpose. The Charter outlines the basic doctrine of what is now accepted to be an appropriate approach to dealing in philosophical terms with historic buildings. The full text of the Venice Charter and other documents detailed in this report can be viewed on the ICOMOS and UNESCO websites.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS), FRANCE (1965) ICOMOS is an international non-governmental organisation that promotes the study of the theory, methodology, and technology of conservation applied to monuments, historic areas, and sites.

BURRA CHARTER (ICOMOS AUSTRALIA)The Burra Charter (Australian ICOMOS Charter) for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Signifi cance (1981)develops the principles detailed in the Venice Charter to suit local Australian requirements. It includes a comprehensive list of defi nitions of items such as place, fabric, conservation, maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation and compatible use. It also introduces the concept of cultural signifi cance, the ‘aesthetic, historic, scientifi c or social value for past, present and future generations’, and requires this to be defi ned for each place, and conservation plans to be established and justifi ed prior to any intervention. It continues with a description of conservation principles and processes that are intended as a defi nition of good practice. The Burra Charter is well established in Australia and is frequently used by the Australian Government in its formal capacity.

WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION, UNESCO The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972. The primary mission of the Convention is to identify and protect the world’s natural and cultural heritage considered to be of ‘outstanding universal value’. The Convention draws up a list of properties ‘the World Heritage List’, made up of natural, cultural and mixed sites and cultural landscapes. It promotes cooperation among all nations and peoples to contribute effectively to the protection of these important properties. The Convention is governed by the World Heritage Committee supported by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the secretariat for the Convention, based at UNESCO headquarters in Paris.

ORGANIZATION OF WORLD HERITAGE CITIES, CANADA (1993)The Organisation of World Heritage Cities (OWHC) was founded on September 8, 1993 in Fez, Morocco. As of December 31, 2001, the organization was made up of 203 cities in which are located sites included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. Of the member cities, seven are located in Africa, 36 in

PLANNERS AND ARCHITECTS WHO ARE OBSESSED WITH CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE WILL ALWAYS ARGUE THAT ITS NOT JUST ABOUT BUILDINGS. AND THAT THEY ARE FACING AN UPHILL BATTLE IN GETTING MORE PREMISES PRESERVED. DEVELOPERS THINK THAT THESE “EXTREMISTS” ARE PURISTS WITH LOFTY IDEAS AND IMPRACTICAL SENTIMENTAL MINDS THREATENING TO ENGULF THEIR HIGH PROPERTY APPRECIATION. AMIDST ALL THESE, THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE IS STILL UNIMPRESSSED THAT CONSERVATION IS THAT ALL SIGNIFICANT TO BE WORTH THE TIME AND EFFORT. THE NEED TO CLARIFY AND DEFINE IS MADE ALL IMPORTANT.


Pala

ver

Latin America and the Caribbean, 20 in Asia and the Pacifi c, 120 in Europe and Canada, and 20 in the Arab States. At the moment there are also four Observer-members. The headquarters are in Quebec City, in Canada.

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS (1877)The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) was founded by William Morris and Philip Webb in 1877, to oppose what they saw as the insensitive renovation of ancient buildings then occurring in Victorian England. Morris was particularly concerned about the practice, which he described as ‘forgery’, of attempting to restore buildings to an idealised state from the distant past. Instead, he proposed that ancient buildings should be protected, not restored, so that their entire history would be preserved. Today, SPAB still operates according to Morris’s original manifesto. It publishes books, and runs courses and a telephone advice line. The Society also has a branch in Scotland.

NATIONAL TRUST, UK (1895)The National Trust was founded in 1895 by three Victorian philanthropists concerned about the impact of uncontrolled development and industrialisation. They set up the Trust to act as a guardian for the nation in the acquisition and protection of threatened coastline, countryside and buildings. Currently

FOR HERITAGE TO BE PART AND PARCEL OF THE THE MALAYSIAN WAY OF LIFE JUST LIKE FOOD AND RECREATION, INSTITUTING AWARENESS AMONG THE DECISION MAKERS IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE. YOU NEED TO HAVE LAWS IN PLACE NOT JUST IN PROVIDING PUNITIVE MEASURES IN PRESERVING BUILT AND AS WELL AS INTANGIBLE MONUMENTS AND HISTORICAL ITEMS BUT ALSO PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS. WHILE THE GOVERNMENT MAY THINK THAT A CERTAIN BUILDING OR SITE IS WORTH PRESERVING, THE BUILDING AND LAND OWNERS MUST BE GIVEN FAIR AND AMPLE CHANCE TO OBJECT AND DISPUTE THE SELECTION THROUGH AN APPEAL SYSTEM TO A NEUTRAL BODY PROVIDED BY LAW!

FACADISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH PRESERVATION OF HERITAGE BUILDINGS. WHILE MOST WOULD AGREE IT INVOLVED ONLY THE FRONT SHELL OF A BUILDING SOME WOULD ARGUE IT TO INCLUDE THE OTHER OUTER SHELL.

the Trust cares for over 248,000 hectares of countryside in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus almost 600 miles of coastline and more than 200 buildings and gardens of outstanding interest. Most properties are held in perpetuity and so their future protection is secure. The vast majority are open to visitors. They are a registered charity and relying heavily on the generosity of subscribing members and other supporters.

VICTORIAN SOCIETY, UK (1958)The Victorian Society is the national society responsible for the study and protection of Victorian and Edwardian architecture and other arts. It was founded in 1958 to fi ght the then widespread ignorance of the 19th

and early 20th Century architecture. Among its thirty founder members were John Betjeman and Nikolaus Pevsner.

ENGLISH HERITAGE (1984)English Heritage is the British Government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment. Offi cially known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, English Heritage is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Its powers and responsibilities are set out in the National Heritage Act (1983) and today it reports to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

FACADISMDemolition of parts of a building while maintaining a certain proportion of its facades.

GUIDELINE BASISA facade is an exterior wall or an architectural front to a building or structure. Facadism is when only the facade is retained and the side walls, fl oors and/or roof are demolished to varying degrees. Often this will be part of a new development within the shell of the building. Occasionally the redevelopment will exceed the original building envelope.

Facadism is generally not accepted as suitable conservation practice. Facadism is not in accord with the principles of the Burra Charter, which focuses on maintaining the signifi cance of a place by retaining and conserving all elements that make up that signifi cance. Facadism is seen as tokenism, as only presenting one side of a place’s history. Buildings are conceived in three dimensions and so


Pala

ver

they should normally be retained in three dimensions.

Heritage studies, building listings and citations, especially those undertaken prior to 1990, may occasionally give the impression that only the facade is signifi cant or protected. This refl ects the state of conservation thinking at the time when early lists and surveys were prepared and architectural qualities were the primary criteria for signifi cance. Since then, the criteria have broadened beyond this superfi cial assessment and reliance on these listings as a justifi cation for facadism can often not be substantiated today when historic, social and scientifi c signifi cance are equally valid criteria.

Respect for the existing fabric is essential to conservation. This respect should include the least possible physical intervention to that fabric. The evidence provided by the fabric should not be distorted by any alterations that occur.

OBJECTIVES• To ensure the appropriate conservation of heritage places.• To ensure that the signifi cance of a place is maintained by retaining and conserving all elements that make up that signifi cance.

GUIDELINESThe following issues should be considered when assessing the retention of only a part of a building:• Facadism in relation to signifi cant buildings and structures is generally not an acceptable conservation practice.• The whole or a substantial part of the place should be conserved. Conservation of the whole should be put before conservation of the parts.• The degree of intervention on signifi cant fabric should be limited to an acceptable level by relating it back to the nature of the signifi cance of the place as a whole.• The relationship between the facade and the street should also be maintained to ensure good urban planning and design, in addition to conservation.• The sensitive reuse of places should be encouraged, which should result in the elimination of the need to keep only the facade of a heritage place.

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)

Transfer of development rights refers to a method for protecting land by transferring the “rights to develop” from one area and giving them to another. What is actually occurring is a consensus to place conservation easements on property in agricultural areas while allowing for an increase in development densities or “bonuses” in other areas that are being developed. The costs of purchasing the easements are recovered from the developers who receive the building bonus.

Two Types of TDR ProgramsThe most common TDR program allows the landowner to sell the development rights to a developer who then uses those development rights to increase the density of houses on another piece of property at another location (i.e., going from 1/4 acre per unit to 1/6 acre per unit). A variation of that type of a TDR would be a situation in which the developer transfers the development rights from one property to another property the developer owns. The higher density that developers are able to realize is the incentive for them to buy development rights.

A second method allows a local government to establish a TDR Bank to transfer development rights. In this method, developers, who wish to develop at a higher density than current zoning allows, would purchase development rights from the local government. Again, the higher density is the incentive for the developer to purchase the development rights. The local government could then use these funds to purchase development rights of properties in areas that it wants to protect from urban development.

IN THE QUEST FOR EQUITABLE RIGHTS IN A DEMOCRATIC PLANNING SYSTEM, THE DECLARATION OF A BUILDING OR AREAS OF CONSERVATION ENTAILS RESTRICTION IN DEVELOPMENT TO THAT SITE. PLANNING TOOLS LIKE TDR HAVE PLAYED THAT ROLE IN ALLOWING FAIR COMPENSATION IN DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF AN OWNER. BOTH LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNING TOOLS LIKE BONUS PLOT RATIO REDUCED CARPARKING CHARGES, REBATES IN ASSESSMENT, CAN ALSO BE APPLIED.

IDEALLY, CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN AN AREA SHOULD INVOLVE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IN LINE WITH THE SPIRIT OF LA 21. WHERE CONSERVATION EFFORTS IN PRESERVING BUILDINGS MIGHT CAUSE PUBLIC CONTENTION PERHAPS HAVING A LOCAL REFERENDUM ON THE SUBJECT CAN BE MADE A LEGAL PLANNING REQUIREMENT.

The receiving area could not increase in density higher than some maximum set within the comprehensive land-use plan. The difference between the density with or without the TDR credits would be the permitted “bonus” that the developer could realize.

Components of a TDR Program. There are four main elements of a TDR that must exist in all successful programs: • A designated preservation zone (the sending area, described earlier). • A designated growth area (the receiving area, described earlier). • A pool of development rights that are legally severable from the land. • A procedure by which development rights are transferred from one property to another.

I KNOW THERE ARE MANY MORE WORDS AND PHRASES ASSOCIATED WITH HERITAGE BUT HEY WHOSE COMPLAINING! IN ORDER TO GAUGE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT MATTER LET US ANSWER SOME BASIC QUESTIONS. PERIOD.

i. WHOSE HERITAGE?ii. WHAT HERITAGE ?iii. WHEN HERITAGE ? BUT MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL,iv . WHY HERITAGE?

Preservation Zone

Sending Area

Growth Zone

Receiving Area

Development Rights

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Figure 1: Transfer of Development Rights (Platt 1996)


Pala

ver

Aylin Orbasli (2000),TOURISTS IN HISTORIC TOWNS: URBAN CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT,E&FN Spon, New York.ISBN 0-419-25930-9

Tourism is becoming a growth industry and in the case of historic towns, it is moving from being an ‘add-on’ economic benefi t to playing a signifi cant and sometimes powerful role in conservation and economic regeneration. For the tourist industry, history has become a product that can be marketed, sold and re-created. Historic settlements and urban areas are seen as assets, readily transformed into products that are sold to customers seeking an ‘experience’. The intention of this book is to examine the relationship of culture, heritage, conservation, and tourism development in historic towns and urban centres by analysing its characteristics, the infl uences of tourism on urban conservation, the pressures of tourism in historic towns and how the historic places are being packaged by the tourist industry.

This book is partly based on the author’s work which was undertaken for a doctorate thesis and partly on later research and practice experience. It covers historic towns that are established or emerging in the tourist market in both developed and developing countries. The focus is the wealth of historic towns in Western and Eastern Europe and in the Mediterranean region.

The book is intended for a multidisciplinary readership including academics, professionals, and decision makers in the fi elds of conservation, heritage management and tourism development. Written from the architectural and urban conservation point of view, the book intends to bridge the gap between conservation and tourism in historic towns.

BOOKS:EDITOR’S CHOICE

YONG CHEE [email protected]

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia.

Revie

w


Robert Pickard (Edited 2001), POLICY AND LAW IN HERITAGE CONSERVATION,Spon Press, London.ISBN 0-419-23280-X

This book compiles studies of legal and policy issues for the conservation and protection of immovable heritage in thirteen different countries within Europe; which includes Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands, Spain, and United Kingdom. The Campaign ‘Europe, A Common Heritage’ undertaken from 1999 to 2000 has provided an appropriate vehicle and timing for these studies. The author of individual country chapters were drawn towards the number of themes to refl ect issues that may reveal the commonality or the contradiction of approaches to the protection of architectural and archaeological heritage. The analysis of the individual countries and a fi nal review of the sample will offer an assessment of how advanced current mechanisms are and what ongoing problems remain to be managed in order to safeguard the ‘common heritage’

Studies in this book also refl ect current progress of thirteen different countries within Europe in practical programmes of technical consultancy, assistance, training, and rising of public awareness in heritage conservation. It also provides an opportunity to refl ect on the different approaches and sheds light on the complexity of provisions utilised in practice.

Wendy Khadijah Moore (2004),MALAYSIA: A PICTORIALHISTORY 1400 – 2004,Archipelago Press, Kuala Lumpur.ISBN 981-4068-77-2

The author who spent much of the last twenty years living in and writing about Malaysia has documented the history of Malaysia pictorially in one volume. The photographic record of Malaysia in this book begins in black and white and then gradually changes to that of colours, from the oldest known prints made from glass negatives to fi lm less wonders of digital cameras. Each picture conveys a strong sense of place and together tells the story of Malaysia’s progress through its development from an ancient trading kingdom to a modern independent nation. Here are images of Sultans, traditional businessman, public servants, and agricultural and industrial workers. It is also a story of people through the changing of fashions, home, architecture, occupations, and entertainment, all refl ecting the many cultures that make up multi-ethnic Malaysia.

Many people have contributed their images to this book; the greatest number has been provided by Arkib Negara Malaysia and the New Straits Times Press. One of the key events depicted in these pages took place on 31 August 1957 when Merdeka was proclaimed and the Federation of Malaya was born.

The New Straits Times Press together with Arkib Negara Malaysia are co-publishers of this book in association with Editions Didier Millet. The result of this collaboration is a documentation of Malaysia past and present that will be an essential reading for all Malaysians as well as for all those overseas who would like to know more about Malaysia.


Revie

w

Robert Home (1997),OF PLANTING AND PLANNING – THE MAKING OF BRITISH COLONIAL CITIES,E & FN Spon, London.ISBN 0-419-20230-7

During the old days, the British were the colonial masters over one of the greatest world’s empires. Though they have long gone from their colonies, their legacies are still evidently visible. Colonial policies and planning have had a profound impact on the form and functioning of these colonial cities. From the aspects of administration to everyday living, the British infl uence can clearly be seen.

This book provides a critical assessment of the impact of British colonialism on world urbanisation and present urban management approaches. The writer examines the history of town planning in the British Empire during the colonial era up to the period of decolonisation and post war reconstruction. Starting with the formulation and application of a centrally directed model of town planning for settler colonies, the writer explores issues such as racial segregation through settlement planning, the infl uence of colonialism on housing, evolution of legislative framework, and the application of the British new towns programme, decentralisation and other planning approaches.

JPBD (2005),TAIPING LIFE AND SOUL: A TOWN PLANNING PERSPECTIVE,Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia.ISBN 983-2773-49-0

Published by the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, this coffee-table book is an alternative approach adopted by the department to reach the masses. It attempts to record Taiping’s evolution from a tin-mining capital to where it is now. This book tells of the forgotten history of Taiping and its place in the town planning perspective. It also reminds the readers of the city’s glorious past, having seen many historic fi rsts.

This book highlights the city’s heritage, many of which are unknown to the general public. As Taiping holds much of the nation’s heritage, be it natural or built, conservation issues are discussed to create awareness in the readers. The aggregation of the book that weaves the historical and town planning elements together draws the readers closer to heritage conservation. It also incorporates the signifi cance and role of town planning in the development as well as preservation of Taiping’s character.

The brilliant photographs in this coffee-table book depict the various elements of Taiping, enticing the readers to take a stroll down memory lane while providing a subtle transition from the seriousness of the issues discussed.

Please contact Research and Development Division, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia at 603-26989211 for purchase and further information.


Revie

w

FEBRUARY 2006

1. 2ND MALAYSIAN SECURITY, LOCK EXPO AND CRIME PREVENTION CONFERENCE 2006

Theme : Together We Prevent Crime

Date : 25 Feb 2006

Venue : PWTC, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Organisers : MCPF, PDRM & MLAM

Speakers : PDRM, MLAM, JPBD, UTM &PAM

MARCH 2006

1. ASIAN DISASTER REDUCTION CONFERENCE 2006

Theme : Towards the Realization of the Strategic Goal of the Hyogo Framework for Action Contact details

Date : 15-17 March

Venue : Chosun Lotte Hotel, Seoul, South Korea

Organisers : ADRC, Japan Governmnet, Korea UNISDR WMO OCHA

Speakers : Representatives from UNISDR, ADRC, Korean Disaster Agency & Japan Disaster Management Agency, USAID

Web site : www.unisdr.org/unisdr/meeting-conference-2006-p.htm

2. ASEAN HEALTHY CITIES CONFERENCE 2006

Theme : Towards Healthy Cities Solidarity

Sub-themes : Implementation of healthy cities at city level, healthy city indicators, equity in health, economic agenda in healthy cities, environmental initiatives in health cities and social determinants of health

Date : 28 March

Venue : Auditorium Perbadanan, Persint 3, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Organisers : The Ministry of Health Malaysia, Putrajaya Coorporation and KL City Hall

Speakers : Kamalrudin Shamsudin: Recent Initiatives in Town Planning Related to Healthy Cities

Web site : www.alliance-healthycities.com/PDF/ASEAN_AFHCconf_Mar06b.pdf

70

PLANNING UPDATES

1. CHUA RHAN [email protected]

2. NOR ZALIZA MOHD [email protected]

Federal Department of Town and Country PlanningPeninsular Malaysia

Upda

tes

MALAYSIAN TOWNPLAN

APRIL 2006

1. THE 12TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CONFERENCE

Date : 6-8 April

Venue : Convention and Exhibition Centre, Hong Kong

Organisers : The Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, University of Hong Kong; ERP Environment; Inderscience Publishers and School of Environment, Nanjing University

Speakers : Mr. Albert Lai, Dr. Sarah Liao, Mrs. Betty Yuen, Prof. Peter Newman, Prof. Peter Hills, Prof. Qian Yi and Prof. Joachim Spangenberg

Web site : http://www.hku.hk/sdconf06

JUNE 2006

1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY (ICiBE2006)

Theme : Bringing Industry and Academia Together for the Built Environment in the 21st Century

Sub-themes : Construction project management, procurement, value, facilities and risk management, environmental planning and management

Date : 13-15 June 2006

Venue : Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Organisers : Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

Speakers : Prof. Dr. Cliff Hardcastle, Dr. Mohamad Tajuddin Rasdi, Prof. Dr. Dean T. Kashiwagi, Dato’ Jebasingam Issace John, Prof. Roy Morledge

Accredited by : Board of Quantity Surveyors, Malaysia, Malaysian Institute of Planners, Board of Architects Malaysia and Board of Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents, Malaysia

Web site : www3.uitm.edu.my/faculties/faps/icibe.htm

2. REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON MITIGATION, PREPAREDNESS AND DEVELOPMENT FOR TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEMS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN REGION

Sub-themes : How to integrate tsunami early warning systems into disaster risk reduction and development planning, guidance on prevention strategies for governments and concrete agreement on how to coordinate action in the regions concerned

Date : 14-16 June

Venue : UN Building, Bangkok, Thailand

Organisers : International Strategy of Disaster Reduction (ISDR), UNESCO/IOC, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacifi c (UNESCAP)

Speakers : Representatives from ISDR


Plan

ning

Upda

tes

3. WORLD PLANNERS CONGRESS 2006 AND UN HABITAT WORLD URBAN FORUM 3

Theme : Sustainable Urbanisation: Turning Ideas into Action

Sub-themes : Planning for more with less, planning for the basic; planning for th unplanned, the natural world and the unexpected; planning for creative change-diversity and social change and planning connects-governance, process and professionalism

Date : 17-20 June

Venue : Westin Bayshore Resort and Marina, Vancouver, Canada

Organisers : Canadian Institute of Planners and Planning Institute of British Columbia

Speakers : Anna Tibaijuka, Stephen Lewis, Dr. Wendy Sarkissian, Dennis S. Mileti, W. Paul Farmer, Cliff Hague

Web site : www.wpc2006.com

4. SEMINAR KEBANGSAAN PENGURUSAN BANDAR 2006

Theme : Bandar Selamat Warga Sejahtera

Date : 4-5 September

Venue : Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Organisers : Kerajaan Selangor

Speakers : JPBD, PDRM, MCPF

5. THE 2006 ASAIHL CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (EfSD)

Theme : Education for Sustainable Development

Sub-themes : Education and Re-orienting of Education for Sustainable Development, Sub-theme Research Directions and Methodological Issues, EfSD in Action, and Networking and Collaborations for EfSD

Date : 19-22 June 2006

Venue : The Gurney Resort Hotel and Residence, Penang, Malaysia

Organisers : The Association Of Southeast Asian, Institutions Of Higher Learning (Asaihl) and Universiti Sains Malaysia

Web site : www.eis.usm.my/asaihl/

6. WORKSHOP GEOHAZARD & DISASTER MANAGEMENT 2006

Theme : Modelling Aid in Disaster Management

Date : 29-30 June

Venue : MACRES, Malaysia

Organisers : MACRES, JPM, GEO, NASA, UNESCO and IGOS

Speakers : Representatives from UNISDR

Plan

ing U

pdat

es


JULY 2006

1. CONFERENCE ON SCIENTIFIC & SOCIAL RESEARCH 2006 (CSSR 2006)

Date : 7-9 July 2006

Venue : Awana Porto Malai, Langkawi, Malaysia

Organisers : Institute of Research, Development and Commercialisation (IRDC). Universiti Teknologi MARA

Web site : www.inforecbm.uitm.edu.my/index.cfm

2. THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (INRET) 2006

Sub-themes : Biotechnology, environmental science/engineering and agricultural science/engineering

Date : 24-26 July 2006 2006

Venue : Marriott Hotel, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Organisers : Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)

Web site : www.cepp.utm.my/inret2006

AUGUST 2006

1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2006

Sub-themes : Safe and secure city, environmentally-friendly activities, legal aspects/by-laws of local government, town planning, public participation/residents’ associations, social and economic developments and structural plan

Date : 22-24 August 2006

Venue : Pacifi c Sutera Hotel, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Organisers : Universiti Teknologi MARA (Sabah branch), Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia, Ministry of Housing and Local Government Sabah and Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Sabah

Web site : www3.uitm.edu.my/sabah/lgc06/

2. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT (ICEE) 2006

Sub-themes : Energy and environment technology, policy and research

Date : 28-30 August

Venue : Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang

Organisers : Universiti Tenaga Nasional

Web site : www.medept.com/ICEE2006/Pl

anni

ng Up

date

s


SEPTEMBER 2006

1. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REMEDIATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED LAND: FOCUS ON ASIA

Sub-themes : Land use planning and management, estate management and property values

Side events : Pre-conference technical workshop and exhibition

Date : 5-7 September 2006

Venue : Berjaya Times Square Hotel & Convention Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Organisers : The Institute of Engineers Malaysia, Malaysian Institute of Planners

Web site : www.iem.org.my/brownfi eldasia

2. INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE SHORT COURSE: FINANCING AND PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND BASIC SERVICES

Theme : Poverty Alleviation


Venue : Thailand and Australia

Organisers : Australian Habitat Studies (AUS-HS) and AUS-HS India

Web site : www.aushs.com/courses-2006

3. INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE 2006

Theme : Challenges of Global Mega Projects

Sub-themes : Excellence in construction and project management; innovations in construction engineering, technology and methodology; promote, impart and enhance knowledge and practices for construction effi ciency and productivity


Venue : Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre (KLCC)

Organisers : Universiti Teknologi MARA, MBAM, CIOB Malaysia

Web site : www.uitm.edu.my/news/ICCpostcard2006.pdf


Plan

ing U

pdat

es

NOVEMBER 2006

1. HPBS 2006 WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY CONVENTION

Themes : Towards Liveable Cities - The ASEAN Way

Date : 8-10 November

Venue : Hotel Nikko, Kuala Lumpur

Organisers : Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan DesaSemenanjung Malaysia

Web site : http://www.townplan.gov.my

DECEMBER 2006

1. ASEAN POSTGRADUATE SEMINAR IN BUILT ENVIRONMENT (ASEAN PGS) 2006

Sub-themes : Architecture, sustainability, construction, surveying, planning and urban, landscape, interior, conservation, management, maintenance, education and design

Date : 4-6 December

Venue : Faculty of the Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Organisers : Faculty of the Built Environment, University of Malaya

Web site : www.um.edu.my/umweb/conf/ASEAN+PGS+call+4+paper+2006.pdf


Plan

ning

Upda

tes

A 1960 VIEW TOWARDS THE RAILWAY STATION FROM PETALING STREET. THE WHITE BUILDING IN THE FOREGROUND IS STILL STANDING AS SEEN FROM GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE BELOW.

Blas

t fro

m th

e Pas

t


Malaysian Townplan Journal 4

Documents

Transcript of Malaysian Townplan Journal 4