Article

Heritage and conservation

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Heritage and conservation

Heritage and conservation in Malaysia encompasses the preservation of historic buildings, cultural landscapes, and intangible traditions across the Malay Peninsula, a field shaped by decades of tension between rapid urban development and the desire to retain the built and natural environment that gives the country’s cities their distinctive character. The movement gained momentum from the 1970s, when large-scale urban renewal projects in Kuala Lumpur, Penang, and Melaka threatened pre-war shophouses, colonial-era structures, and sacred sites, prompting the emergence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that articulated an alternative model of development they termed ‘sustainable development’ [1, pp. 51–52]. The economic and cultural significance of heritage conservation in Malaysia is inseparable from the tourism industry, the construction of national identity, and the protection of indigenous architectural traditions that reflect the tropical climate and multicultural composition of the population [1, pp. 54].

Origins and the Idea of Sustainable Development

The intellectual foundations of Malaysian heritage conservation lie in the New Left and environmentalist movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which offered alternatives to the dominant paradigm of capitalism and economic growth guiding the Malaysian state [1, p. 52]. The Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP), founded on 7 November 1969 by S. M. Mohamed Idris, an Indian Muslim Justice of the Peace, provided a focal organization for young academics and university students at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) who embraced these views [1, p. 53]. Lim Teck Ghee, who served as CAP secretary from 1973 into the early 1980s, described the movement as ‘a campaign against a certain type of development, development that wastefully consumed resources and rewarded rich and powerful developers’, adding that ‘we wanted a more sustainable form of development’ [1, p. 53].

The first major confrontation between this philosophy and the state’s development model occurred in George Town, Penang. In 1970 the Penang state government, under Chief Minister Dr Lim Chong Eu, initiated the urban renewal of George Town, envisaging an Urban Centre with a 65-storey skyscraper, the Kompleks Tun Abdul Razak (Komtar) tower, at its centre. The project entailed demolishing 22 acres mainly filled with 304 pre-war shophouses, which were the homes of many rental tenants and small businesses [1, p. 53]. On 1 January 1974, Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein proclaimed that ‘the old order must give way to the new’ and that ‘modernisation of the old in the city is important, especially within the context of building a new, modern and progressive Malaysian society’ [1, pp. 53–54]. CAP described Komtar as both an architectural ‘monstrosity’ and a ‘monumental model of a white elephant dedicated to the narrow-minded planning of the authorities who do not have in mind the needs of the man in the street’ [1, p. 54].

The ideas of CAP and its architectural heritage offshoot, Institut Masyarakat (Community Institute, established in the mid-1970s), were most clearly articulated in November 1981 at a national seminar at USM called ‘Appropriate Technology, Culture and Lifestyle in Development’. The seminar resolutions lamented that ‘many Malaysians—consciously or unconsciously—are allowing the local culture to dissipate in the name of “progress”, “development” and “modernization”’, and proposed that ‘the role of historical buildings in the formation and maintenance of traditional culture and identity should be recognized and actively supported by the Government’ [1, p. 54]. The organizations argued that such support should aim ‘not only the conservation and restoration of key buildings and built areas of significance, but also ensure such buildings are fully integrated into the economic and social life of the community’ [1, p. 54].

A further test came in 1982 when the colonial Catholic seminary buildings and surrounding 6.5-hectare park land at College-General, Pulau Tikus, were sold to private developers for RM10 million, well above the value of the land according to its existing zoning of religious and institutional use [1, p. 55]. A petition against the rezoning garnered 900 signatures within a few weeks, and Aliran, a broader social justice NGO established in 1977 by USM academics under Chandra Muzaffar, argued that the ‘College-General building should be valued as a link with Penang’s history. As the only building of its kind left in Penang, it should be conserved rather than summarily demolished’ [1, pp. 55–56]. The battle was lost in 1984 and the site was demolished, but the experience demonstrated that communities in Malaysia could be mobilized by educated elites in NGOs acting in the public interest [1, p. 56].

The Bukit China Campaign and the Emergence of Dedicated Heritage NGOs

The event that most raised public consciousness in Malaysia about the value of heritage preservation was the threatened redevelopment of Melaka’s historic Chinese cemetery, Bukit China, which contained 12,500 graves and covered 42 hectares [1, p. 56]. The cemetery was connected to the early presence of Chinese in Malaysia from the time of the fifteenth-century Melaka Sultanate [1, p. 56]. On 5 October 1983 the Melaka state government under Chief Minister Datuk Seri Rahim Thamby Chik privately informed the trustees of the Bukit China Cemetery, the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple, that it intended to develop the site into shopping complexes and rezone it for commercial and residential use [1, p. 56]. When private negotiations failed, Rahim publicly announced the decision in the Melaka State Assembly on 10 April 1984, and the state government sent the temple trustees a RM2-million quit rent bill dating back to 1968 on 23 June 1984 [1, pp. 56–57].

The campaign that followed became a national issue. On 8 July 1984, 1,500 people attended a protest organized by the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) at the site [1, p. 57]. The Chinese community of Malaysia overwhelmingly supported keeping Bukit China as heritage, and on 12 October the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple announced that over 294,000 people had rejected redevelopment in a ‘referendum’ they had conducted [1, p. 57]. On 3 November the DAP submitted a petition signed by 300,000 people [1, p. 57]. The Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), a party in the ruling Barisan Nasional government, set up a ‘Save Bukit China Fund’ on 3 December, and four MCA ministers in the Cabinet donated a month’s salary to the fund [1, p. 57]. On 5 January 1985 the DAP called off its campaign as Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad intervened to remove Bukit China as a divisive source between Malaysia’s different races, religions, and cultures [1, p. 58]. An ‘amicable settlement’ was announced on 21 February 1985, with the Cheng Hoon Teng Temple submitting proposals for the ‘beautification’ of the site [1, p. 58].

The Bukit China heritage battle proved that civil society groups could garner public support for heritage issues and take on the state and win [1, p. 59]. In a complete turnabout, Chief Minister Rahim projected a new image as a protector of Melaka’s historic architecture, calling the heritage battle ‘a blessing in disguise’ [1, p. 58]. Melaka gazetted the Chinatown–St Paul’s Hill area as a heritage zone under the State’s Preservation and Conservation of Heritage Enactment Act of 1988, becoming the first Malaysian state to pass into law an enactment dealing with heritage issues [1, p. 58]. On 15 April 1989 the state government declared Melaka a ‘Historical City’ before Malaysian Cabinet ministers and representatives from UNESCO, though it failed to achieve World Heritage listing that year because of extensive land reclamation of its seafront and redevelopment within the conservation zone [1, p. 58].

In Kuala Lumpur, the official incorporation of Badan Warisan Malaysia (BWM, Malaysian Heritage Trust) on 2 August 1983 followed a successful public campaign in 1980, led by CAP, the Malaysian Nature Society, and Indian community organizations, to save the Batu Caves from destructive blasting by a nearby quarry [1, p. 59]. BWM’s first heritage battle was the preservation of the Kuala Lumpur Central Market, built in 1936 as a wet market, which was about to be demolished in 1984 [1, p. 59]. The BWM mobilized public opinion and persuaded the developers that revitalization was more profitable than demolition. When it was restored and reopened in October 1985, the Central Market was ‘adapted for re-use as an open space bazaar-like centre’, with handicraft and souvenir stalls, restaurants, and food and beverage outlets, modelled on London’s Covent Garden, Boston’s Faneuil Hall, and New York City’s South Street Seaport [1, p. 59].

The Penang Heritage Trust (PHT) was registered as a society on 22 August 1986, partly modelled on the BWM but drawing more heavily on the activist tradition of the Penang 1970s social justice NGOs [1, p. 61]. The PHT combined the conservatism of the BWM’s National Trust of Britain model with the approach of the earlier Penang activists, bringing about a new phase in heritage activism [1, p. 61]. Its inaugural chairman was Lim Chong Keat, the architect of Komtar and the Penang Chief Minister’s brother, who was unrepentant about the project and even gave a tour of the building to PHT members [1, p. 61].

Institutional Development and the Path to National Legislation

The 1990s saw two trends emerge among Malaysian heritage NGOs: they began to more easily mobilize public opinion, and they were more readily able to engage governments that were now keener to further the cause of heritage conservation [1, p. 64]. The campaign to save Penang Hill from development in 1990–92 was similar in impact to the Bukit China campaign in galvanizing support behind conservation of both natural and built heritage [1, p. 64]. On 1 September 1990 it became public knowledge that the Penang state government had entered into a memorandum of understanding with Vincent Tan’s Berjaya Corporation over a tourism project to redevelop 900 acres of Penang Hill into luxury hotels, condominiums, shopping complexes, theme parks, and golf courses [1, p. 64]. Eight NGOs formed the ‘Friends of Penang Hill’ coalition, and on 30 November 1990 CAP held a public forum at which a petition signed by 19,772 people was presented [1, p. 64]. The project was ultimately abandoned after the Malaysian Department of the Environment rejected the developer’s revised environmental impact assessment report, and CAP acknowledged that ‘40,400 signatures from people who wanted to save Penang Hill as natural heritage’ had been crucial [1, p. 65].

The demolition of the Hotel Metropole on Christmas Day 1993 acted as a further catalyst. The developer Dolphin Square ignored a municipal council heritage site protection order and demolished the building, which had been constructed in 1900 in a Moorish architectural style near the seaside in an area of George Town known as ‘Millionaire’s Row’ [1, p. 65]. Under the municipal council’s laws the maximum fine for demolishing a designated protected heritage site was only RM48,000, regarded as paltry for any developer [1, p. 65]. The incident galvanized the heritage movement, and under pressure from the PHT and the media, local authorities set up a heritage advisory committee [1, pp. 65–66].

The BWM, under the presidency of Ahmad Sarji Abdul Hamid, appointed in December 1995, who had served as Chief Secretary to the Malaysian government from 1990 to 1996, increased its influence in the corridors of power and in business boardrooms [1, p. 69]. In 1994 it was proposed to demolish both Stadium Merdeka and Stadium Negara in Kuala Lumpur; Ahmad Sarji reversed the decision in the late 1990s and obtained funds from Permodalan Nasional Berhad to buy them in 2000 and restore the historic buildings, which were handed over to the Malaysian government in 2007 [1, p. 70]. The BWM also undertook the restoration of Rumah Penghulu Abu Seman, a Malay village headman’s architecturally intricate wooden house built in the 1920s, which was transplanted from Kedah to the grounds of BWM’s Jalan Stonor offices in 1997 [1, p. 70]. In 2000 it was cited by Richard Engelhardt, the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia and the Pacific, as ‘a significant historic structure that illustrates the beauty of vernacular Malaysian architecture’ which, if not for its relocation, ‘would have been lost’ [1, pp. 70–71].

The decade-long campaign to list George Town and Melaka for World Heritage status achieved success on 10 July 2008 when the two cities were inscribed jointly as World Heritage sites by UNESCO [1, p. 67]. The BWM was influential in drafting the 2005 National Heritage Act, which the World Heritage listing required [1, p. 72]. The Act set up a heritage register on which historic buildings would be placed as ‘National Heritage’ once identified, and created a National Heritage Conservation Council with representatives of heritage NGOs and conservation specialists [1, p. 72]. However, most of the Act’s powers were given to a civil servant designated as the Commissioner of Heritage, and the government rejected the BWM’s key recommendation for the establishment of a powerful National Heritage Conservation Corporation with powers comparable to the National Trust of Britain [1, pp. 72–73]. Professor Datin Paduka Siti Zuraina Abdul Majid, who took up the position of Heritage Commissioner in March 2006, noted that the NGOs felt they had a formal organizational structure to ‘channel’ their proposals to the government, but emphasized that the new powers had limitations, as all tiers of government had to give approval before a building or site was gazetted [1, p. 73].

Ecological and Toponymic Dimensions of Heritage

The concept of heritage in Malaysia extends beyond the built environment to encompass ecological and toponymic dimensions that connect the modern city with its indigenous and natural roots. Teckwyn Lim and Peter Leong Yue Sek’s study of the lost Sungai Lumpur (Mud River) demonstrates how colonial cartography and developmental urban planning erased indigenous and ecological place names, and how the resurrection of such names offers opportunities to reconnect the modern city with its lost riparian heritage [2, p. 57]. The name ‘Kuala Lumpur’ is commonly translated as ‘muddy confluence’, referring to the junction of the Klang and Gombak Rivers, but Lim and Leong argue that the city’s name derives from a now-lost tributary stream called Sungai Lumpur, mentioned in several historical records including an 1824 account by John Anderson, an 1872 sketch map, and recollections of the Selangor Civil War (1867–74) [2, p. 57]. Their analysis suggests that the stream was renamed by the British as the ‘Treacher Valley Stream’, which runs through the heart of the city and is now channelised and partly covered over [2, p. 57].

The authors demonstrate that the disappearance of the Sungai Lumpur from the map was facilitated by the British renaming of the stream, the resettlement of the Temuan community from Bukit Nanas in 1897, and the channelisation of the watercourse into a monsoon drain [2, p. 57]. By 1897 the Temuan population at Bukit Nanas had been reduced to about 30 people and was resettled to Bukit Lanjan [2, p. 57]. A 10-metre storage tunnel uncovered by Kuala Lumpur City Hall in 2014 beneath Bukit Nanas is interpreted as part of an underground labyrinth dug during the Selangor Civil War, its mouth only about 150 metres from the Sungai Lumpur’s kuala (river mouth) [2, p. 57]. The 1911 Malay Mail letter by ‘C.W.H.’ is the first recorded report that the Sungai Lumpur had become unidentifiable on local maps, urging readers to locate it ‘before all trace of its existence is lost’ [2, p. 57]. This work reframes Kuala Lumpur’s history by highlighting its marginalized indigenous and ecological roots, and offers a model for how heritage conservation can encompass not only standing structures but also the hydrological and toponymic memory of a landscape [2, p. 57].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on heritage and conservation reveals a clear evolution in scholarly priorities over the period covered by the records. Kevin Blackburn’s 2015 article in JMBRAS provided the first comprehensive study across Malaysia focusing on the origins and historical development of the heritage NGOs themselves, extending existing scholarship on Melaka (Cartier, 1997) and Penang (Jenkins, 2008; Nagata, 2010; Cheng et al., 2014) to include Kuala Lumpur and the BWM [1, p. 52]. Blackburn’s work filled a gap he identified: ‘there is no scholarly work on Kuala Lumpur-based Badan Warisan Malaysia (BWM, Malaysian Heritage Trust) despite being active in heritage conservation since its founding in 1983’ [1, p. 52].

Zuraini Md Ali’s 2010 article challenged the prevailing narrative that building conservation in Malaysia began with Hajeedar Abdul Malek’s 1976 articles in Majalah Akitek, demonstrating that institutional and practical conservation work was already underway in the early 1950s, catalysed by Mubin Sheppard’s dual roles as British Adviser to Negeri Sembilan and, after independence, as the first Director-General of the National Museum [3, p. 47]. Ali’s reconstruction pushed the effective starting point back to the early 1950s and centred an individual biography as the organising framework for what had previously been treated as a purely technical or policy-driven narrative [3, p. 47]. His use of primary sources—Sheppard’s handwritten minutes, letters to contractors, newspaper appeals, and legal correspondence—revealed the practical difficulties of funding shortfalls, bureaucratic delays, community opposition, and the scarcity of skilled traditional carpenters that shaped each conservation project [3, p. 47].

The historiographical contribution of these works lies in their cumulative effect: Blackburn documented how the three cities’ heritage movements interacted with and reinforced one another over four decades [1, p. 74]; Ali established that the movement’s institutional roots predated the NGO era by three decades [3, p. 47]; and Lim and Leong expanded the very definition of heritage to include ecological and toponymic dimensions that had been erased by colonial and developmental processes [2, p. 57]. Together, these studies trace a trajectory from individual heroism and grassroots activism through institutional consolidation to a period of state-NGO collaboration that culminated in the 2005 National Heritage Act and the 2008 World Heritage inscriptions, while also revealing the persistent tensions between conservation ideals and the structural limitations of the legal and administrative frameworks that govern them [1, pp. 72–73].

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. K. Blackburn (2015). The rise of Malaysian heritage non-governmental organizations (1969‒2005 JMBRAS 88(2): 51–76. Read on JSTOR
  2. Teckwyn Lim and Peter Leong Yue Sek (2025). Muddy Waters: The Lost Sungai Lumpur JMBRAS 98(2): 57–91.
  3. Zuraini Md Ali (2010). Tan Sri Dato’ Dr Mubin Sheppard: pioneer in the conservation of historical buildings in Malaysia, 1959-1994 JMBRAS 83(2): 47–91. Read on JSTOR