Interpretation of Sites of Memory: Inclusiveness Principle in Heritage

Sites Conservation in Malaysia

Azni binti Mohd Dian, Nuraisyah Chua Abdullah and Normawati bt Hashim

Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

Keywords: Sites of Memory, Inclusiveness, Heritage, Interpretation, Conservation management.

Abstract: Interpretation of Sites of Memory; outlined by the ICOMOS Charter promotes the inclusiveness principle

by engaging local communities in the identification and designation of heritage sites. In Malaysia, such

interpretation has nonetheless failed to reach the intention highlighted by the Charter, although previous

studies demonstrated that the principle is essential to improve public understanding of heritage

conservation. There is a significant deficiency regarding inclusiveness between public institutions and civil

society. Consequently, it is difficult to have decisive heritage management without an agreed approach to

interpret heritage values. This study aims to review the existing law in the interpretation of sites of memory

and the inclusiveness principle in the heritage designation and management process. This qualitative

research applies a doctrinal approach by analysing provisions in the heritage and planning legislation and

reasons adduced in the decision-making of heritage site conservation. The findings reveal that the

interpretation of sites of memory by the Commissioner and Minister is absent and often fails to respond to

the views of the local communities. This paper concludes that Malaysia should consider emulating the

inclusiveness principle designed by the ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural

Heritage in the heritage sites conservation process.

1 INTRODUCTION

The importance of values and significance are

closely related to the interpretation of Sites of

Memory. It exists due to the people or groups of

people who share in those values. Nevertheless,

previous researches demonstrate a heritage site often

has distinct values for those groups (Vieje-Rose,

2015). Memory studies and heritage studies may

share some common ground conceptually, however,

occasionally overlapping. The values for which a

site may be designated can be of its Outstanding

Universal Value (OUV) of a World Heritage Site or

of a cultural heritage significance for a local heritage

(World Heritage Convention, 1972). Concerning the

Sites of Memory, they are generally associated with

intangible values, also known as associative values,

it derives from peoples’ feelings about,

understanding of, and relationship to a place, its

history, and the uses to which it has been

customarily applied. Hence, the inclusive principle

that endorses the role of the people particularly the

local communities, through the concept of public

participation forms an integral part of such

interpretation. For the purpose of this research, Sites

of Memory refer to places, which are conferred with

historical, social or cultural significance because of

what has happened there in the past and

acknowledged as sites with memory aspects. They

play essential roles in shaping the identity of the

local communities or the nation. Unfortunately, in

Malaysia, the role of local communities in the

interpretation aspect was not given due attention.

Hence, this research examines the relevant laws that

govern the interpretation of Sites of Memory and its

implementation aspects, particularly the

inclusiveness principle in engaging the public to

participate in the designation and management

process. The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation

and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites

(“ICOMOS Charter”) is analysed as a reference and

for guidance in the Malaysian context. The findings

of this research reveal that the interpretation of Sites

of Memories was taken lightly as the engagement of

the people seemed insignificant. The discretionary

power provided by the law on the Commissioner of

Heritage (Commissioner) and the Minister of

Tourism and Culture (Minister) to interpret and

Dian, A., Abdullah, N. and Hashim, N.

Interpretation of Sites of Memory: Inclusiveness Principle in Heritage Sites Conservation in Malaysia.

DOI: 10.5220/0010050501910195

In Proceedings of the International Law Conference (iN-LAC 2018) - Law, Technology and the Imperative of Change in the 21st Century, pages 191-195

ISBN: 978-989-758-482-4

 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All r ights reserved

191

decide what constitutes a cultural heritage

significance has undermined the importance of

interpretation of Sites of Memory and inclusiveness

principle in the heritage conservation management.

Consequently, some of the heritage sites that worth

preservation has been construed as of no significant

value and demolished in the name of development.

2 METHODOLOGY

This is a qualitative research applying a doctrinal

approach by analysing relevant provisions in the

National Heritage Act 2006 (“Act 645”) and Town

and Country Planning Act (“Act 172”) and reasons

adduced in the decision-making of heritage site

designation in Malaysia. Several heritage cases

reported by the media and information gathered

from World Heritage Committee and interviews

with officials of the Heritage and Planning

Departments and heritage non-government

organizations (NGOs) were also analysed.

3 SITES OF MEMORIES

What is considered as Sites of Memory range from

the values of heritage sites, whether natural or

cultural, which the local community’s belief that

these values endure and sustain concerning a place

(Soul et al., 2010). For a multiracial country like

Malaysia different communities, groups or even

individuals will attach different values to each

heritage site.

Sites of Memory are also vested with historical,

social or cultural significance because of what has

happened there in the past. As defined by Pierre

Nora in 1998, the Sites of Memory is “any

significant entity, whether material or non-material

in nature, which by dint of human will or the work

of time has become a symbolic element of the

memorial heritage of any community” (Nora, 1989).

Nora also demonstrated that the development of

memory is associated with changes in society,

politics, mode of life, etc. that influenced the people

to embrace the past.

These changes seem to bring about constant

reflections of the people’s memories and how they

perceived and justified changes in history.

Therefore, the study of history that links to past

experienced is not just to study the reality but also

includes the study of why people reconstructed the

reality. In recognising the importance of the

interpretation of the Sites of Memories, it is crucial

to determine who defines a place as a Sites of

Memory.

3.1 Sites of Memory and Heritage

Values

In evaluating values of the world heritage sites

conservation, the World Heritage Convention

considers cultural heritage to include monuments,

groups of buildings or sites of Outstanding

Universal Value (OUV). However, it is also noted

that there are sites that can also have aspects of Sites

of Memory, which are not formally recognized as

part of their OUV. In this situation, these sites can

only be designated as World Heritage properties if

the memorial aspect can be directly attached to

physical facets of the heritage site. It would also

indicate that the memorial value needs to be of

significance to all humanity and not just at a local or

national level. Further, it is vital that the nominating

party or the Minister calls for a dialogue with

relevant stakeholders, perhaps with mediation, to

reach a shared interpretation, and to resolve any

conflicting interests in the interpretation efforts.

The ICOMOS Charter has also elaborated the

significance of the interpretation of sites of

memories is to enhance public awareness and

intensify understanding of the complexities of

conservation management of heritage sites

(ICOMOS Charter, 2008). The process includes the

designation, planning, implementation, monitoring,

evaluation and feedback. One of the relevant and

significant principles is the inclusiveness principle

that firmly advocates the role of the members of the

public by facilitating the involvement of

stakeholders and associated communities in the

development and implementation of interpretive

programmes. Getting effective management without

an agreed approach to interpretation is a great

challenge.

In some western countries such as the United

Kingdom, Portugal, Australia, and Canada reveal

that the interpretive plans were introduced to meet

the heritage management objectives (Klein, 2000;

Stell, 2001). These interpretive programmes were

undertaken with the assistance of individuals and

organisations such as in public use planning,

heritage interpretation training, dispute resolution,

interpretive planning, interpretive evaluation,

experience planning and shared research to support

sustainable heritage sites.

iN-LAC 2018 - International Law Conference 2018

192

3.2 Inclusiveness Principle

The inclusiveness principle in the development of

the Sites of Memory is associated with changes in

society, politics, and mode of life, that influenced

the people to embrace the past. These changes seem

to bring about constant reflections of the people’s

memories and how they perceived and justified

changes in history (Johari et.al., 2017). Therefore,

the study of history that links to past experienced is

not just to study the reality but also includes the

study of why people reconstructed the reality. In

recognising the importance of the interpretation of

the Sites of Memories, it is crucial to determine who

defines a place as a Sites of Memory. Centering such

concept on the identity of a community, Nora

believes that the local community has a greater role

compared to other stakeholders as the heritage value

of the site is recognised by the local communities,

supported by heritage experts such as historians,

heritage architects and archaeologists. These experts

will assist to formulate the values of the memorial

aspects and negotiate on whatever conflicting

interpretations of the sites provide an independent

advice to the relevant authorities in the heritage

designation and conservation decision-making

process.

The seven principles designed by the ICOMOS

Charter and ideas raised by Nora of interpretation of

Sites of Memories undeniably endorsed the

fundamental roles of the local communities notably

through an inclusive approach. This approach

perceived significance and associative values of a

heritage place by taking into consideration not only

the views of the heritage experts and other

stakeholders but most importantly the local com-

munities. This principle could strengthen community

cohesion, promote trust, dialogue and enhance

mutual understanding across diverse societies and

policy cum decision maker.

3.3 Inclusiveness Principle: Malaysian

Position

Undoubtedly, the interpretation of Sites of Memory

sheds some lights on the potential challenges and

opportunities in the interpretation of sensitive

cultural sites related to memory for heritage owners,

tourists and the public, including the necessity of

dealing with conflicting interests and views of the

values of the site. It will also encourage heritage

managers to work equitably and inclusively. In

Malaysia, while the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act

645) provides some form of criteria to be applied by

the Commissioner of Heritage and Minister in

interpreting cultural heritage significance for

heritage site designation, another separate law, the

Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) is

assigned with the tasks to manage the heritage sites

conservation aspects after the designation of the

sites.

3.3.1 Inclusiveness Principle in Heritage

Sites Designation

In analysing how the interpretation of Sites of

Memory and inclusiveness principle are applied, it is

crucial to look at the relevant provisions and cases

reported by the media. In the designation process,

while Section 24 empowers the Commissioner to

designate a site of a cultural heritage significance as

a heritage site, Section 67(1) of Act authorizes the

Minister to declare any valuable sites as a national

heritage if it meets the criteria stipulated under

Section 67(2)(a) - (i). These broad provisions seem

to generously provide a wide discretion to the

Commissioner and Minister whether to designate or

not in the interpretation of heritage significance or

values. Both the discretionary power accorded to the

Commissioner and Minister and the general criteria

on cultural heritage significance provided under the

law have underestimated the inclusiveness principle

to engage the people in interpreting the Sites of

Memory. The history and values attached to the life

of the local community that evolved and connected

to what has happened to the site in the past seem

irrelevant. It is also contrary to the inclusiveness

principle advocates by the ICOMOS Charter. Even

though the law requires inputs not only from the

historians, heritage experts, archaeologists but also

the local communities, regrettably, there are no such

mandatory provisions that uphold such principle

(Azni and Nuraisyah, 2013).

For example, the demolition of Bok House in

2006 soon after Act 645 was gazetted has drawn a

severe debate by many quarters on the question of

interpretation of heritage sites significance (Gill,

2006). A high cost to maintain the site was the reason

adduced by the Minister when rejecting for heritage

designation. Even though the people argued that the

National Heritage Council should play their role to

advise the Commissioner or Minister in the decision-

making process(Section 9(1)); unfortunately, the

recommended views are not binding on the

Commissioner or Minister (Section 9(2)).

In Penang, squatters of Kampung Siam which

was previously granted to the Burmese and Siamese

communities in 1845 by Queen Victoria for the

Interpretation of Sites of Memory: Inclusiveness Principle in Heritage Sites Conservation in Malaysia

193

communal and religious use, appealed to the Chief

Minister to preserve their village as a state heritage

but was refused as the State has to bear a high cost

for payment of compensation to the developer.

Unfortunately, there is no form of consultation made

between all the heritage experts, NGOs, and the

local communities for valuable insights that form a

landscape of remembrance (Elizabeth, 2016). Lack

of inclusiveness approach to call for a dialogue with

the local communities, assisted by independent

heritage professional experts for their interpretation

of Sites of Memory may cause injustice to the

Siamese villagers. The presentation of ‘memory’

that highlights certain historical narratives of the

sites, but in this case, it is underrepresented.

3.3.2 Inclusiveness Principle in Heritage

Sites Management

The role to manage after the designation of the

heritage sites is the Town and Country Planning

Department (Planning Department). Its management

process starts the moment the Commissioner

notified the Planning Department of its designation

been completed (Section 32 of Act 645) At this

stage, any application for planning permission for

development affecting the designated sites must get

prior approval from the Commissioner, and it is no

issue. However, for sites which have not been

selected under Act 645 but of a cultural significance

value, the law is silent on the roles of the Planning

Department to protect the valuable sites in approving

the planning permissions for development (Azni et

al., 2017). While it is understandable that it is not

the jurisdiction of the Planning Department to

designate places as a heritage site, but there is a grey

area under Act 172 that fails to advocate the spirit

endorsed by the Heritage Department in interpreting

heritage values before planning permission for

development is granted. This argument is evidenced

in several cases raised by the media and NGOs. For

example, the Stadium Merdeka, which is linked to

the nation’s declaration of Malaysian independence

was approved for demolition but later was

withdrawn due to public outcry; a developer in 2013

demolished the Bujang Valley in Kedah, an ancient

Hindu temple believed to be more than 1,000 years

old; the Runnymede Hotel, one of the oldest

buildings in Penang, was demolished over the

Chinese New Year holidays in early 2015; and a

proposal to construct a Light Rail Transit (LRT) and

monorail projects under the Penang Transport

Master Plan (PTMP) which is near the Penang

heritage zone border.

The above cases demonstrate how interpretations

of sites of memory in the heritage management by

the Planning Department led to complexity in

preserving the heritage value identified by the

Commissioner or Minister. The inclusiveness

principle is absent in the planning permission

application affecting heritage sites. The views of the

people appear immaterial. While it is always

possible to carry interpretation beyond the bounds of

the values determined by heritage official

recognition, a description of these associative values

could be proposed in the management plan.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The interpretation of Sites of Memory requires the

principle of inclusiveness and all the insights

associated with a particular place about its

designation and overall management of such areas

be addressed. The memorial aspects that acquire

from the appreciation of their associative values

could justify their recognition as a Site of Memory.

However, interpretation of these associative values

demands a prudent approach through dialogue in

developing descriptions for a place with memorial

aspects. The law should facilitate all relevant

stakeholders especially the local communities with

interest in it, or those with distinctive or conflicting

views, to be engaged in identifying values and

verifying these findings.

For effective management of the sites, an

interpretation plan needs to be formulated to include

all primary and strategic aspects; an updated

inventory of the assets and resources of the heritage

place, identify the relevant stakeholders, key

interpretive themes and stories, defining appropriate

methods and techniques of interpretation, and most

importantly is the implementation plan. The

management plan must also respect the distinctive

connections between people and a place and

consider that some areas have multiple and possibly

conflicting values.

Although the law in Malaysia does acknowledge

the importance of interpretation of heritage

significance for the designation of heritage site

purposes, sole discretion of the Commissioner of

Heritage and the Minister in the heritage

conservation has been a serious concern of the

heritage conservationists. Failure to outline the

necessary and holistic criteria in the interpretation of

Sites of Memories in the designation and

conservation process inevitably has caused

iN-LAC 2018 - International Law Conference 2018

194

significant adverse impacts on the heritage

sustainability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our gratitude to the

Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA

(UiTM) for its generosity to fund the participation

fee for this conference. Our appreciation also goes to

those who, directly or indirectly, involved during the

course of this research.

REFERENCES

Azni, M.D., & Nuraisyah, C.A., 2013. Public participation

in heritage sites conservation in Malaysia: Issues and

challenges. Procedia – Social and Behavioural

Sciences. 101, 248 – 255.

Azni, M.D., Nuraisyah, C.A., & Nurulhuda, A.M., 2017.

Heritage site conservation in the sustainable

development context: Experience in Malaysia. In 1st

International Conference for Environmental

Researchers and Teachers,28 – 29 September. Shah

Alam: Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Gill, P., 2006. ‘Move to keep Bok House’, The Star, 16

June. Available at

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2006/06/16/

move-to-keep-bok-house/ (Accessed: 2 December

2018)

ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation

of Cultural Heritage, ratified by the 16th General

Assembly of ICOMOS, Québec (Canada), on 4

October 2008.

Johari, H.N.A., Armitage, L., & O’Hare, D., 2017.

Australian cultural built heritage: Stakeholders’

perceived conservation barriers and motivations.

Pacific Rim Property Research Journal. 23(2), 161 –

173.

Klein, K.L., 2000. On the emergence of memory in

historical discourse. Representations.69, 127 – 150.

Nora, P., 1989. Between memory and history: Les lieux de

mémoire. Representations. 26, 7 – 24.

Soul, S., Zande, B., & O’Brien, J., 2010. Living memory:

Support and maintenance manual version 1.0. Soul

Solutions. Brisbane.

Stell, M., 2001. Eternity: Stories from the emotional heart

of Australia, National Museum of Australia. Canberra.

Viejo-Rose, D., 2015. Cultural heritage and memory:

Untangling the ties that bind. Culture & History

Digital Journal. 4 (2), e018-e018.

World Heritage Convention, ratified by the 17

session of

The General Conference of the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

meeting in Paris from 17 October to 21 November

1972.

Interpretation of Sites of Memory: Inclusiveness Principle in Heritage Sites Conservation in Malaysia

195