Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Statement on the revocation of MaTIC's, heritage site status

views
     
joe_mamak
post Jan 7 2017, 11:05 PM, updated 5y ago

Casual
***
Junior Member
363 posts

Joined: Dec 2006


http://www.thesundaily.my/node/419313

The Sun Daily
Letters - Statement on the revocation of MaTIC's heritage site status
Posted on 4 January 2017 - 07:48pm

THE notification in the NST on Dec 28, 2016 from Jabatan Warisan Negara (JWN) to revoke the designation of the “Old Building of Malaysia Tourism Centre (MaTiC)” as a heritage site raises many concerns and issues.

» Law does not provide for revocation of 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 designation 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 16 June 2016. The criteria for listing specified in documents from JWN refers to its historical importance as well as its architectural and aesthetic character.
The National Heritage Act (NHA) does not have any provision for revocation of gazettal of a 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 which has already been gazetted; i.e. is this revocation ultra vires the Act?

» Significance of the heritage site
So 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 the part of Lot 158, which has been gazetted.

Lot 139 is by far the largest lot. There are several other buildings on this lot, including the house of wealthy business tycoon Eu Tong Sen and the Dewan Tunku Abdul Rahman. In keeping with the social standing of the owner, Eu, many social activities were held in this house from the time it was built (1935) until the start of World War II (WWII). During WWII, 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 Yang di-Pertuan Agong was held there. In 1958 a conference hall, the first air-conditioned hall in Kuala Lumpur, was added at the rear of the building. In 1959, the first meeting of 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 for the next decade or so. In the 1980s and 1990s several new blocks were added; these include Saloma Bistro and retail stores serving visitors and tourists. In the mid-1980s, the conference hall was converted into a theatre. This ensemble of buildings that has served as the Tourist Information Centre for over 20 years is now known as MaTiC.

» NHA and new development initiatives on a heritage site
Then there is the issue of new development on a heritage site. It is important to note that there is nothing in the NHA which precludes new development. As in the case of all applications for planning permission, owners will have to comply with guidelines and conditions imposed by the local authority – in this instance it will be Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. When it comes to gazetted heritage sites, however, there will be additional guidelines and conditions imposed by JWN in line with provisions found in paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 of the NHA, all of which could potentially affect the scale and nature of the proposed development. This would include the provision of a 200m “buffer” from the site boundaries for any new development to mitigate against any (negative) impact on the heritage values of the gazetted building and/or site.

One could speculate that this revocation is to redress the fact that there are no heritage buildings on Lots 45 and 158, and therefore the gazettal should not have covered these two lots, only Lot 139, which has heritage properties. If this were the case, it would also beg the question why the gazette in June 2016 included all three lots.

One would definitely expect a high level of rigour as well as resources in all endeavours to undertake the gazettal of any heritage site.

The NHA provides for the process to include notification to the owner/s, 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 are notified of these decisions in the printed press. This process takes time, and it has been our past experience that JWN 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 the designation as heritage of MaTiC.

Due process of the law has to be followed for the future protection of heritage sites in Malaysia.

Elizabeth Cardosa
President Badan Warisan Malaysia
joe_mamak
post Jan 7 2017, 11:05 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
363 posts

Joined: Dec 2006


Huehuehuehue

Prime land on Jalan Ampang.
Balaclava
post Jan 7 2017, 11:08 PM

5-Star Swagger
*****
Senior Member
941 posts

Joined: Jul 2010
QUOTE
First, section 31(2) of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), which was cited in the notice, describes the process for designation 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 16 June 2016. The criteria for listing specified in documents from JWN refers to its historical importance as well as its architectural and aesthetic character.
The National Heritage Act (NHA) does not have any provision for revocation of gazettal of a 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 which has already been gazetted; i.e. is this revocation ultra vires the Act?



Sorry to break your bubbles ladies and gentlemen. the court stance have been very clear in several of the landmark cases. if there is an "enabling provision" to an act, automatically it is deemed that the draughtsmen of the Parliament also intend for the act to provide power to remove and/or disable and/or to counter certain provision. It cannot be the case whereby an act confers power to a body to do something but does not provide a provision for the revocation of the same.
ashburn98
post Jan 7 2017, 11:08 PM

Runaway train
******
Senior Member
1,560 posts

Joined: Nov 2005
QUOTE(joe_mamak @ Jan 7 2017, 11:05 PM)
Huehuehuehue

Prime land on Jalan Ampang.
*
Faidzal
post Jan 8 2017, 12:15 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
240 posts

Joined: Aug 2008
From: From JB to KL!
same reason why zouk moved out? iinm they were next door...

oh, and there's a muslim cemetery just across the road.

don't tell me they plan to take over that plot as well?



Bump Topic Add ReplyOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0189sec    1.09    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 18th April 2021 - 01:38 PM