THE notification in the NST on Dec 28 from Jabatan Warisan Negara (JWN) to revoke the designation of the “Old Building o f Malaysia Tourism Centre (MaTIC)” as a heritage site raises many concerns.
The law does not provide for the revocation of a heritage site status.
First, Section 31(2) of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), which was cited in the notice, describes the process for the declaration of a heritage site. It does not deal with revocation of a gazetted site.
And we understand that this site, which comprises Lots 45 and 139 (Section 58) and part of Lot 158 (Section 57), was gazetted (Gazetted Number P.U. (B) 290) as “warisan” on the National Heritage Register on June 16.
The criteria for listing specified in documents from the National Heritage Department refer to its historical importance as well as its architectural and aesthetic character.
The National Heritage Act (NHA) does not have any provision for the revocation of a gazetted heritage site. Therefore, it would appear that unless the NHA is amended to allow for this, it is questionable if the commissioner has the power to revoke a site’s heritage status. Is this revocation ultra virus of the act?
What can we find on Lots 45, 139 and the part of 158, which is identified in the notice as MaTIC?
Lot 45 is used as a car park, which services the tourism centre. There is a modern five-storey building housing the KL Tourism Office on Lot 158, which was gazetted.
Lot 139 is by far the largest lot. There are several other buildings on this lot, including the house of business tycoon Eu Tong Sen and Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman. In keeping with Eu’s social standing, many social activities were held in this house from the time it was built in 1935, until the start of World War 2. During WW2, it was used by the British, and then the Japanese army as a war office.
In 1956, it was acquired and renovated by the government of Malaya, and in 1957, the installation of the first Agong was held there. In 1958, a conference hall, the first air conditioned hall in Kuala Lumpur, was added to the rear of the building.
In 1959, the first meeting of the Parliament of the independent Malaya was held there. Following the building of the new Parliament House, by the early 1970s, the original house and hall were converted to house the National Art Gallery.
In the 1980s and 1990s, new blocks were added, including Saloma Bistro and retail stores. In the mid-1980s, the conference hall was converted into a theatre.
This ensemble of buildings that have served as the Tourist Information Centre for more than 20 years is now known as MaTIC.
Then, there is the issue of new development on a heritage site. It is important to note that there is nothing in the NHA that precludes new development. Like in the case of applications for planning permission, owners have to comply with guidelines and conditions imposed by the local authority. In this instance, it is Kuala Lumpur City Hall.
When it comes to gazetted heritage sites, however, there are additional guidelines imposed by the National Heritage Department in line with provisions found in paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 of the NHA, all of which could affect the scale and nature of the proposed development.
This includes the provision of a 200m “buffer” from the site boundaries for any development to mitigate impacts on the heritage values of the gazetted building or site.
One can speculate that the revocation of the building’s heritage status is to redress the fact that there are no heritage buildings on Lots 45 and 158. Therefore, the gazette should not have covered those lots, only Lot 139, which has heritage properties.
If this were the case, it also begs the question why the gazette included all three lots.
One would definitely expect a high level of rigour as well as resources in all endeavours to undertake the gazette of any heritage site.
The NHA provides for the process to include notification to the owner or owners, an objection period, hearing and, eventually, the decision to, or not to, designate a heritage site; and all along the way, there are clear steps to ensure the public is notified of decisions in the press.
This process takes time, and in our past experience, the National Heritage Department does not take this responsibility lightly.
Badan Warisan Malaysia believes it is critical to understand the implications and legal ramifications of this notice to revoke MaTIC’s heritage site status.
Due process of the law has to be followed for the future protection of heritage sites in Malaysia.
ELIZABETH CARDOSA
President, Badan Warisan Malaysia