and Bukit Kiara are very important as their early historical associations will slowly erode andbe forgotten. Regeneration projects or disguised urban development pose as their greatestthreats. The significant values of these hills to Kuala Lumpur: unique botanical values in ametropolitan area and the landscape history reasons of their occurrence; high biodiversitysignificance that can be treasured. These hills should be listed under Conservation ForestManagement. For Bukit Nanas, restoration of its historical tunnel should be included as partof the remaining historical asset of Taman Eko Rimba Bukit Nanas.13.3.5 We propose the extension of KLDSP2040: SV1 Integration of Nature in UrbanDevelopment and SV3 Green Network and City Heritage by establishing not only ecologicalcorridors through three green landscape corridors, i) Linear Corridor, ii) Eco-Stepping Stoneand iii) Landscape; but to add natural forests, rivers and parks as ‘healing corridors’. Thesehealing corridors, formed by connecting parkways, green open spaces, forests and riverinenetworks, can be opportunities to create further linkages and connectivities to the centralMain Range mountains and well as the coastal and estuaries of Peninsular Malaysia.13.3.6 Starting from the onslaught at the foothills of the Klang-Gates Quartz Ridge (1,200 feetabove sea level) from Bukit Melawati to Zoo Negara by agricultural settlements to residentialdevelopments, the urbanisation pressure also affected the character of Bukit Petaling, BukitNanas and very soon, Bukit Kiara. To preserve hillsides we would want to bring back thecharacters of the hills. For example, we need to reforest Bukit Petaling with the PetalingTree, native to Malaysia-Indonesia, lest we forget why Jalan Petaling and Petaling Jaya gotnamed. Trees will give linkages apart from providing shade, and give ambience character ofthe original settlement. The Petaling Trees will help us give priority to the memory of BukitPetaling.13.3.7 A statement on the need to preserve forests appears in KLCP2020: 15.4.2 PhysicalEnvironment; “Some of the remaining forest areas are under threat of development.The encroachment of development has, in most cases, made the forest areas no longersustainable as self-contained habitats for indigenous species. In some areas, whole colonieshave disappeared while in others, they have been reduced to scavenging thus, bringingthem into conflict with residents in adjoining housing areas.” In order to restore KualaLumpur’s natural heritage and achieve KLDSP2040: SV1.1 Protecting Biodiversity Assets ofthe City, all forest reserves and hills within Kuala Lumpur should be suggested as watercatchment areas. Otherwise, the ongoing threats and insensitive development proposals willremain a cause of conflict between the public and DBKL. Any new developments proposedin areas surrounding the forests and hillsides must be made to submit an EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) report to ensure that these catchment areas are sustained. Fortransparency, the EIA ought to be made available to the public/stakeholders.13.3.8 In reference to KLDSP2040 SV3:Green Network and City Heritage and SV3.3Promoting the Implementation of Kuala Lumpur Heritage Trail, green linkages connectingexisting riverines, hills, public parks and pocket parks to River of Life may also includeconnectivity to Bukit Persekutuan and Bukit Petaling. 46

13.4 Historic Recreational Fields13.4.1 Kuala Lumpur’s recreational fields have always been the centre of sports growth,some have been venues for important sporting events in the past, representing themuhibbah spirit that sports cultivate. The Selangor Chinese Recreation Club field was takenover by the Plaza Rakyat development some time back. Similarly, some old fields are alreadypoised for new developments such as the old Railway recreational field at Jalan PadangBelia, Brickfields. We suggest that DBKL recognises established recreational fields as partof Kuala Lumpur’s historic urban landscape and protect them. The growth of local sportsis very much dependent on the existence of recreational fields. Incentives to preserve andcare for these fields and their facilities will enliven the city with healthy recreational activitiesand competitive sports. There are certainly potentials for programming of events that wouldserve the sports and cultural urban tourism sectors well.13.4.2 Listing historical fields will protect them from being developed for other purposes.Among the city centre’s remaining historical recreational fields are: i. field at Dataran Merdeka, Jalan Raja (no longer hosts competitive sports), est. 1890s. ii. field at Sultan Suleiman Club, Jalan Dewan Sultan Suleiman, est.circa 1909. iii. field at Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Tun Razak, est. circa 1896. iv. Padang Merbok, Jalan Parlimen (originally part of Public Garden). v. field at Stadium Jalan Raja Muda (old TPCA), est. circa 1915. vi. field at YMCA, Brickfields, est. circa 1908.13.5 Historic Cemeteries13.5.1 Old cemeteries within Kuala Lumpur’s city centre are also historic landscape features.Our historic cemeteries are valuable historical resources, revealing information abouthistoric events, religions, lifestyles and genealogy. Names carved on gravemarkers serveas a directory of our early residents, reflecting the ethnic diversity and unique populationof Kuala Lumpur. They are also burial places that contain the remains of personalitieswho have contributed to the historical development of Kuala Lumpur. Therefore the roleof historic cemeteries in our communities must not be taken for granted. We are all tooaware that these spacious open areas within the city centre are attractive to mega scaledevelopers. Some of them today are isolated by new developments such as the Jalan AngSeng Muslim Cemetery (est. circa 1915) in Brickfields. These historic cemeteries must notonly be protected, but also enhanced so that the sites don’t become derelict.13.5.2 KLDSP2040: BM5.3 Managing Development for Special Areas mentions theproduction of design guidelines for designated cemeteries, harmonising them with thecity’s surroundings. On top of that we recommend the adoption of a Historic CemeteryPreservation Plan for Kuala Lumpur which looks into the preservation, rehabilitation andmanagement for the better care of historic cemeteries, including the care of old tombstones.The quiet environment and lush greenery of Kuala Lumpur’s cemeteries also have potentialfor Cemetery Tourism.47

Image: Heritage Output Lab 13e The historic recreational sportsImage: Heritage Output Lab field at Sultan Suleiman Club has been in active use since early 1900s. Important national and international games were held at this field in the past, giving birth to many local star sportsmen. 13f Although recognised by many, the background of this cemetery, located next to the old Roman Catholic Cemetery along Jalan Dewan Bahasa, is largely unknown. Survey, mapping and a Historic Cemetery Preservation Plan will protect the site from unwanted attention e.g. acquirement for development. 48

13.5.3 The following are several historic cemeteries that dates from the 1890s and are stillin active use (names of prominent personalities laid to rest included): i. Jalan Ampang Muslim Cemetery, 1892 – Raja Laut, Sutan Puasa, Tan Sri P. Ramlee. ii. Old Roman Catholic Cemetery, Jalan Dewan Bahasa, 1903. iii. Japanese Cemetery of Kuala Lumpur, off Jalan Dewan Bahasa, 1897. iv. Sinhalese-Buddha Cemetery, Jalan Loke Yew, 1903. v. Kwang Tong Cemetery, Bukit. Petaling, 1892/93 – Yap Ah Loy, Yap Kwang Seng. vi. Kwang Si Cemetery, Bukit Petaling, 1898. vii. Hokkien Cemetery, Bukit Petaling, 1898. viii. Cheras Christian Cemetery & Cheras War Cemetery (Commonwealth Graves), Jalan Cheras – Sir Henry Gurney. ix. Hindu & Sikh Crematorium, Jalan Loke Yew, 1921. x. Makam Pahlawan, Masjid Negara, 1965 - Tun Dr. Ismail, Tun Abdul Razak. xi. Loke Yew’s Family Memorial, Wangsa Maju - Loke Yew, Dato’ Loke Wan Tho.13.5.4 To our best knowledge there has not been any detailed survey/mapping/recordingcarried out for these cemetery sites or gravestones, except for the Cheras War Cemetarythat is managed by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC). Our recentvisits found the old Roman Catholic graveyard at Jalan Dewan Bahasa derelict and the oldgravestones within the Jalan Ampang Muslim Cemetery in urgent need of restoration. Theneed for a Historic Cemetery Preservation Plan is more than apparent.49

Summary of Recommendations 13 : Historic LandscapeKlang-Gombak River Confluence as Kuala Lumpur’s Genius Loci1. View the Klang-Gombak river confluence as Kuala Lumpur’s genius loci and list/nominate it as a cultural heritage site.2. Conduct cultural mapping in heritage districts along the rivers.3. Improve the concrete drain-like appearance of the Klang and Gombak rivers,especially at the confluence. 4. Share detailed information of the Riparian Ecosystem Rehabilitation with thepublic.Preservation of Hillsides5. Take measure to preserve and protect the hillsides of Kuala Lumpur.6. Include Bukit Persekutuan and Bukit Petaling as forest reserves underConservation Forest Management.7. Restore the Bukit Nanas Tunnel as part of Taman Eko Rimba Bukit Nanas’s asset.8. Include all existing hills and forest reserves in Kuala Lumpur as water catchmentareas.9. Make Environmental Impact Assessment compulsory for new developmentssurrounding the forests – make available to the public/stakeholders.10. Extend green connectors (parks, urban spaces) to blue corridors (River of Life)and heritage trails to Bukit Petaling and Bukit Persekutuan to bind their health-promoting, healing and therapeutic effect on the community.11. Reforestation of the hills with original and native species of trees that resemblesthe name of the hills e.g. Bukit Petaling with the Petaling Tree (Ochanostachysamentacea).Historic Recreational Fields12. Recognise established recreational fields as part of Kuala Lumpur’s historicurban landscape and protect them from other kind of development prospects.Historic Cemeteries13. Protect cemeteries from development and improve derelict areas.14. Produce a Historic Cemetery Preservation Plan for all historic cemeteries.15. Explore Cemetery Tourism as part of Cultural Urban Tourism.16. Conduct detailed mapping/survey/recording of historic cemeteries and theirgravestones. 50

14Heritage Trees14.1 Heritage Trees are part of the city’s Historic Urban Landscape . We have long observedthat a great number of heritage trees in Kuala Lumpur are endangered for various reasons –neglect, lack of knowledge on preservation and threats from infrastructure developments.The absence of detailed guidelines in KLCP2020 to protect trees that give significantcharacter to historical settings are fortunately addressed in KLDSP2040: SV1.3 IncreasingGreen Intensity in Kuala Lumpur, identifying potential heritage trees for gazettement underthe National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645). We do hope the number of heritage trees listed, atthe moment totalling to 593, would increase.14.2 On the setting of tree preservation criteria, we suggest an additional criteria – treesthat were part of Kuala Lumpur’s early urban landscape planting. This includes, amongothers, the row of rain trees behind the Sultan Abdul Samad Building and the tree avenue atJalan Ampang, although sadly we must state that other old tree avenues have dissapeared,taken over by road widening.14.3 Some existing trees may not fulfill the needs of a new development, however, phasingout such trees, replacing them with ornamental trees is deemed unwise considering thehistorical values they hold for a particular heritage setting. Among regretted past events(read: mistakes) are the removal of the group of Cocos nucifera (coconut trees) at MasjidJamek and the phasing out of several beautiful old rain trees (Samanea samans) alongthe Gombak River around St. Mary’s Cathedral. Where new infrastructure affects existingheritage trees, or any mature trees for that matter, Transplanting of Trees should be madecompulsory.14.4 The tree protection zone that is currently implemented lays out guidelines for areascovered by established and old trees in Kuala Lumpur. However, many of these trees arestill seen with very little space around them, causing roots to be severed – their stabilityjeopardised. The maintenance of heritage trees are still not up to par, with repeated casesof uprooted and fallen trunks. We observe that a number of heritage trees were retainedwhen roads were widened in the late 1990s, uprooted only in the last 10 years although theysurvived 80-100 years prior to that. We have been made to understand that a conditionsurvey of heritage trees has been undertaken by DBKL, and so we wonder whether aconclusion has been made on the current methods of heritage tree conservation. An articledated 1 May 2019 in The Star informs that DBKL currently has 6 arborists and plans to have15 by 2025. A quick check on DBKL’s Landscape Department’s website gives no indicationof where these arborists are positioned. We welcome a dedicated Arborist Unit establishedunder DBKL’s Landscape Department. This unit can be linked to the Conservation Officesuggested in Chapter 3; 3.2 to ensure full protection for heritage trees.14.5 To align with SV1.3’s objectives, we suggest a comprehensive Heritage Tree Schemeencompassing Heritage Trees, Heritage Roads and Tree Conservation Areas. i. Heritage Trees: important landmarks, projects identity of a place, safeguards andpromotes appreciation of natural heritage e.g. rain trees along the Klang River and Dataran51

Image: Google Maps, 2020 14a The Heritage Avenue along Jalan Ampang - what’s left of it towards the Jalan Sultan Ismail- Jalan Ampang junction. Merdeka. The list of nominated trees shall be inspected by DBKL’s Arborist Unit and endorsed as Heritage Trees subjected to TPO in Act 172 & Order 2011. ii. Heritage Avenues: the most significant tree-lined roads with large mature canopies, acts as natural portals, encloses road-gateways – to retain natural identity e.g. Jalan Ampang, Jalan Sultan Ismail, Jalan Raja Abdullah, Jalan Parlimen, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, subjected to Tree Protection Order in Act 172 & Order 2011. iii. Tree Conservation Areas: high density mature trees as living testaments to Kuala Lumpur e.g. Bukit Nanas, Taman Botani Perdana, Taman Tasik Titiwangsa, KLCC Park, Kepong Metropolitan Park. 14.6 The Heritage Tree Scheme should include those in Bukit Persekutuan and Bukit Seputeh as part of the KLCP2020: Kuala Lumpur Green Network inclusive of Taman Tugu, Bukit Tunku and Taman Duta remnant forests – conserving the flora and fauna of Kuala Lumpur and it’s biodiversity. Summary of Recommendations 14: Heritage Trees 1. Add early urban landscape planting as one of the Tree Preservation Criteria. 2. Make Transplanting of Trees compulsory should they be affected by new infrastructure demands. 3. Establish an Arborist Unit within DBKL’s Landscape Department. 4. Introduce a comprehensive Heritage Tree Scheme: i) Heritage Trees, ii) Heritage Avenues, and iii) Tree Conservation Areas. 52

15Traditional Villages: Unplanned and Planned15.1 The rapid economic development of Kuala Lumpur has brought upon the demolitionof certain historic districts and this has resulted in an alteration of the socio-economiclandscape and unsettling community imbalance. The existence of traditional villages in thecontemporary landscape of Kuala Lumpur is considered fragile – a large number of themhave been torn down due to rapid urbanisation since the 1960s. KLDSP2040: BM5.2 PlanningQuality Development in Traditional Villages and Other Villages demonstrates the realisationof values in preserving established neighbourhoods. Tourists also usually look for uniqueand authentic aspects of a city’s local heritage and native culture, places and things, whichclearly differentiate traditional villages from other places in Kuala Lumpur.15.2 The Kuala Lumpur, A City for All tagline is not reflected in the definition andcharacteristics of ‘traditional villages’ in KLDSP2040 which outlines it to be ‘Malay traditionalvillages in modern cities with Malay living culture, Malay designs and architecture’. Theonly non-Malay traditional village in the list is Kampung Pandan India which we recall hasgone through several phases of redevelopment (for its residents) since 2009. There areother traditional villages in Kuala Lumpur resided by different ethnicities/communities thatdeserve similar protection and attention as they are also part of Kuala Lumpur’s long history.We present the following categorisations and examples for DBKL’s assessment and furtheraction.15.3 There are two main groups of traditional villages within Kuala Lumpur which are the‘unplanned’ and ‘planned’ villages.15.3.1 Unplanned Villages are historic settlements established in the early period ofKuala Lumpur’s formation between 1880s to 1910s, if not earlier. The nine villages listedin KLDSP2040 SV2.3: Re-beautifying Strategic Areas of Kuala Lumpur: Traditional Villages;Table 5.5 within the Gombak Malay Reserve Areas, Kampung Pandan Luar and KampungPasir Baru are examples of Unplanned Villages (we note that some have been reorganised).15.3.2 Kuala Lumpur’s Planned Villages can be divided into 3 categories, followed byexamples: i. Resettlements The most notable resettlement scheme will be the Malay Agricultural Settlement (MAS) initiated in 1899 and implemented since 1900, the Kampong Bahru. ii. Estate Housing a) Kampung Lee Kong Chian to house employees at Lee Rubber’s rubber plantation and factory, named in reference to the company’s founder, Tan Sri Lee Kong Chian (further background described in Appendix B). b) Brickfields Residential Estate to house workers for infrastructure works. iii. Chinese New Villages Resettlement schemes which were part of the Briggs’ Plan during the Emergency in the early 1950s such as Jinjang New Village.53

Image: ICOMOS Malaysia 15a Kampong Bharu (pic), isImage: Google Maps, 2020 composed of Kg. Hujung Pasir and Kg. Periuk (Melakan Malays), Kg. Pindah (Boyanese), Kg. Paya (Javanese), Kg. Masjid (Rawanese), Kg. Atas A (Mandailing) and Kg. Atas B (Minangkabau). Their traditional houses were built over a period of time by different Malay ethnic groups since 1900. There are some fine examples within Kampong Bharu which reflects their cultural identity. There is a lot to lose if we fail to recognise the values of these traditional houses. 15b There were a total of 436 Chinese New Villages relocated under the Briggs’ Plan between 1948 to 1960. Another 177 fishing and Chinese villages were later added, bringing it to a total of 613 new villages. Jinjang New Village (green boundary) is the only one sited in Kuala Lumpur. In 2018, the New Villages Urbanisation Program was launched, where 20 new villages with tourism potential were selected. We hope that DBKL studies the possibility of transforming the Jinjang New Village into a ‘Chinese Food & Cultural Village’. 54

15.4 It is important to highlight that traditional unplanned villages and resettlement villagessuch as Kampong Bharu were developed over a period of time, thus inheriting some veryinteresting buildings that reflect their origin or ethnic composition that is worth a series ofexpert in-depth studies – especially for selective groups of buildings deemed suitablefor preservation. Kampong Bharu for instance, is composed of Kg. Hujung Pasir and Kg.Periuk (Melakan Malays), Kg. Pindah (Boyanese), Kg. Paya (Javanese), Kg. Masjid (Rawanese),Kg. Atas A (Mandailing), and Kg. Atas B (Minangkabau). In contrast, the Chinese New Villageswere planned and built within a very short period during the Emergency, hence, their lessobvious/diverse characters of built form, apart from some bigger houses with courtyards(at centre well behind ancestor hall) and half-brick, half-timber wall structures. The ChineseNew Villages inherited intangible cultural heritage such as food, places for worship, ancestralbuildings and shops that are unique between different ethnic groups such as the Hakka,Fujian, Hainan, Guandong, Teochew, GuangXi and Fuzhou people.15.5 We urge that the definition given for traditional villages in BM5.2 is expanded tocover all types of traditional villages within Kuala Lumpur’s boundary. This would also helpin improving social integrity and strengthen a sense of Malaysian identity. The backgroundof one selected heritage village, Kampung Lee Kong Chian, is presented in Appendix B fora better understanding of its cultural/social significance and rationale for preserving suchvillages.15.6 Measures to protect or conserve traditional houses within these villages (and insome isolated areas) also need to be addressed. In Kampong Bharu for example, clustersof vernacular-styled buildings are to be identified to showcase the village’s developmentthrough the eras for serious preservation and conservation if it hasn’t been done so. Theoriginal spirit and intention of these houses and settlements need to be respected, toensure that the community will not be left out by urban development, whether in the pastduring the formation or in the future (to develop together). It is recommended to review thepossibility of adopting public-private partnerships in any development proposals relating tothese traditional villages.15.7 Monetary benefits from preserving traditional villages have to be demonstrated(e.g. from longer-stay of tourists), though it may not necessarily be profit oriented. In thelonger run, the residents would benefit, as opposed to short-term gains for a small groupof developers or individuals. For any community heritage planning scheme, involvementof the actual owners are crucial and we need to respect the actual needs/wishes of thecommunity. Community participatory process (bottom-up approach) is recommended forany development proposals in these villages.15.8 A heritage trail program within these villages will promote tourism and socialand cultural sustainability, in support of initiatives developed amongst local experts andcommunities.55

Summary of Recommendations 15: Traditional Villages: Unplanned and Planned1. To provide successful examples/models throughout the world so as todemonstrate positive outcomes.2. Redefine criteria for Traditional Village with a focus on Malaysian identity, usingpreservation of traditional villages to improve social integrity and promote a senseof identity.3. To set up a working group to study the values of preserving heritage villagesand townships (group of buildings) to reflect the tangible and intangible heritageof cultural history and tradition of Kuala Lumpur hence, Malaysia. The study areasmay include Kampong Bharu (Malay Enclave), Brickfields Residential Estate (IndianEnclave) and Jinjang New Village (Chinese Enclave).4. To encourage community participation (bottom-up approach) by setting up aplatform within each village for public views and suggestions for their needs/wishes.5. To set up a heritage trail program within traditional villages to promote tourismfor social and cultural sustainability in support of initiatives developed amongstlocal experts and communities. 56

16Historic Housing Development Schemes16.1 Further to the development of administrative buildings, transportation buildings,shophouses (in urban centres), private homes, mansions by tycoons/philanthropists andtraditional villages within the city of Kuala Lumpur, in this chapter we would like to highlightthe need for DBKL to consider listing some of the city’s unique historic housing schemes(public and private) that were developed since Independence, from 1957 until 2020. Theaim is for these schemes to showcase Malaysia’s housing design evolution as well as reflectthe intangible values they carry as the Government’s early housing initiatives – providingcare, shelter and accommodation for citizens through public housing projects as well asgovernment housing quarters for public servants.16.2 Public Housing Projects16.2.1 Housing has been recognized as an important development tool for restructuring asociety and eradicating poverty. From promoting welfare for people in the 1950s to promotingthe concept of house-owning democracy in the 1970s, the Malaysian Government has, since1996, taken further steps to commit in providing adequate, affordable and good qualityhouses for its people. In Malaysia, housing developments are guided through programmesand strategies outlined in the country’s Five-Year Plans. These aim to provide adequate,affordable and quality housing for all income groups, initially focusing on the low-incomegroup, and later the low, low-medium income group. The policies were further improved,moving towards providing affordable quality homes for people in recent years. This is aunique aspect of Malaysian governance, a display of social responsibility that is highlycommended and appreciated.16.2.2 Historic housing schemes that are able to showcase the best effort in design andbuilding standards that promote social integration, comfort and quality of life should bepreserved as good practice examples for our current and future generations. A largenumber of historic housing schemes were part of DBKL’s and the Ministry of Housing & LocalGovernment’s early efforts since late 1950s to relocate squatters, reorganise and improveliving conditions. Such schemes are worth preserving not only because of their architecturaltypology, but also for their historical significance to their residents, and to the city – markingthe transition from traditional residential lifestyle to modern living. Among those that DBKLcould consider are: i. Selangor & Malayan Mansion, Jalan Masjid India. 1964: high-rise, high density ii. Jalan Loke Yew Flats, 1965: high-rise, high density. iii. Jalan Hang Tuah Flats, 1967: high-rise, high density. iiv. PKNS flats (Flat Merah), Jalan Tun Razak, Kg. Padang, Kampong Bharu, 1969: mid- rise, mid density. v. Taman Ikan Emas, 1976: DBKL’s pilot project to provide high medium density; an experimental project; winner of Habitat Award; low-rise, mid density vi. Perumahan Awam Setapak Jaya 1 & other similar schemes, 1980s: mid-rise, mid density. vii. Wangsa Maju Section 1 Flats, 1980s: mid-rise, mid density. viii. PPR Flat, 1990s: high-rise, high density.57

Image: Google Maps, 2020 16a Selangor Mansion and itsImage: Goh Ai Tee twin building nearby, Malayan Mansion are two historic housing schemes complete with ground floor retail units built by United Realty in 1964 to house residents from the earlier timber house settlements in the area. It is the only remaining historic housing scheme in the heart of the old city centre (Jalan Masjid India). Measures to improve amenities and secure its existence must be looked into. 16b Taman Ikan Emas is DBKL’s 1st high-density low rise pilot housing project based on the ‘Kampong Court-House Row’ concept with a total of 600 units, nett development density of 60 units/acre. In exchange for a land in Cheras, Developers are to redevelop Taman Ikan Emas by 2028. We urge for DBKL to consider preserving a group of houses in the area that reflects the original ‘Kampong Court-House Row’ concept. 58

16.3 Government Quarters16.3.1 Early government quarters/housing schemes that are still in existence have alsocontributed significantly to Kuala Lumpur’s historic character. These include: i. Government Quarters at Bukit Persekutuan, began early 1890s, expanded in 1952. The area was officially named Federal Hill in commemoration of the Federation of Malaya. The scheme sits well within the topography, and the hill is part of the city’s natural feature. ii. Jalan Pegawai Government Quarters in Ampang Hilir, 1950s. iii. Pusat Latihan Polis (PULAPOL) Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Sultan Yahya Petra, 1940; a training institute for Royal Malaysia Police. iv. Senior Government Quarters in Jalan Stonor and Jalan Conlay, 1920s. v. Wardieburn Military Camp in Danau Kota, off Jalan Genting Kelang.16.3.2 The government quarters at Bukit Persekutuan, Jalan Pegawai and Jalan Stonor-Jalan Conlay are worth studying in detail, examining their potential for adaptive reuse –ensuring sustainability and upkeep.16.4 Private Housing Developments16.4.1 Private Developers will opt for outstanding marketable schemes that would alsobuild up their company profiles. Some schemes have become benchmarks to the growthof Kuala Lumpur. Some high-end housing developments indirectly project the idea of a‘World Class City’. They also showcase the market perception and the level of confidencethe developments held at the point of time. Thus, we would also like to recommendedfor DBKL to consider selecting outstanding private housing developments that are able toshowcase a particular era and the advancement of housing concepts under a ‘City Heritage’category. Some good examples for DBKL’s consideration: i. Desa Kudalari, Lorong Kuda, 1984: the first high-end condominium in Kuala Lumpur. ii. Park Seven, Persiaran KLCC, 2008: 1 unit per floor, 270-degree view, low density high-rise. iii. One KL, Jalan Pinang, 2009: first duplex condo with swimming pools in each unit; i ts tagline is ‘94 apartments, 95 swimming pools’. iv. The Troika, Persiaran KLCC, 2010: sky lobby that links its 3 towers. v. Verticas Residensi, Bukit Ceylon, 2011: first dual key concept condominium that promotes flexibility and the extended family housing concept.16.4.2 It is also important to highlight the concept of Public-Private Partnerships carried outin the 1980s-2000s under a blanket policy that requires all private housing developmentsover 5 acres of land to allocate 30% of the development for low-income families. Privatedevelopers typically resort to high-rise high density housing schemes for low income familiesespecially in city centres. However, it is important to promote other alternatives, using theSetapak Jaya Housing Development as an example – a very important breakthrough in localprivate housing schemes. The project, developed in 1978, was inspired by DBKL’s Taman Ikan59

Image: Goh Ai Tee 16c No. 2 Jalan Stonor (pic) was aImage: Goh Ai Tee government housing quarters built in 1925 for Senior Officers, adapted as the headquarters of Badan Warisan Malaysia since the 1996. Neighbouring government quarters have mostly been demolished to make way for high-end high rise developments. We hope that DBKL and JWN will acknowledge the historical and cultural significance of No. 2 Jalan Stonor, and to list it as a heritage building/site. 16d The Setapak Jaya Housing Scheme was designed using the ‘Kampong Court-House with Cluster’ concept. A total of 1651 units were built on 50 acres of land with nett development density of 54 unit/acres per cluster. 60

Emas pilot housing project. Setapak Jaya’s 50-acre land provides 1,650 units – 50% being2-storey, 2-bedroom units with a garden, and the remaining 50% being 3-storey, 3-bedroomunits with a garden. The medium density low-rise Setapak Jaya Housing Developmentmarks one of the most important initiative by a private developer and is worth consideringfor preservation, providing future generations with an alternative design possibility whendealing with housing for low income families in urban areas.16.4.3 In reference to KLDSP2040:BM2.2 Creating Development Opportunities in UrbanRenewal Areas; Figure 8.9, it is important to review the 51 acres of land under urban renewalprojects to ensure important building(s)/neighborhood(s) are identified. We would like torequest DBKL to revisit these redevelopment proposals – to review existing values thatought to be preserved as good examples that reflect the development of social/privatehousing before any demolition work takes place.16.5 The proposal for residential infills in Kuala Lumpur’s mature neighbourhood is timely,while reactivating and preserving old residential areas that have historical and architecturalvalues is paramount. Additional medium intensity housing developments within low densitymature neighbourhoods may be considered, as long as the new infill developments are inharmony with the existing setting of the historic housing schemes.16.6 Limiting the number of storeys for medium scaled residential infill developmentsis not recommended. This is particularly crucial when the proposed infill development islocated on hilly sites or on the higher end of old residential quarters where mechanicaltravel systems (home lift, car lift, etc.) can be inserted to fulfil the disabled access designrequirements and to create a lifetime home quality.16.7 Proposals that callfor adopting high densityhousing developments under KLDSP2040needs to be reviewed as different socio-economic backgrounds with different levels ofaffordability and family structures may result in different types of housing/development. Alow-rise, low-medium rise, and medium/high-density infill development within the vicinityof historical housing development schemes may be promoted.61

Summary of Recommendations 16: Historic Housing Development Schemes1. To study statutory criteria to select historic housing projects for heritage listingand protection. Reference to be made to successful listing abroad, such as theUnited Kingdom. The criteria could cover architectural and historical interests.Reference can be made to the 7 top post-war housing estates listed in the UK asguidance to identify potential types of housing schemes in Kuala Lumpur suitablefor listing.2. Evaluate the following when making listing decisions for historic housingschemes: • Group values. • Fixtures and features of a building and curtilage buildings. • The character or appearance of conservation areas.3. General principles for the selection of buildings/housing projects may include: • Age and rarity. • Buildings that are less than 30 years old. • Aesthetic merits. • Selectivity. • National interest. • Stage of repair.4. Consider benchmark private housing developments as ‘City Heritage’.5. DBKL to arrange further discussions with the Department of National Heritage(JWN), Ministry of Housing & Local Government and other relevant authorities whomay manage or own shortlisted housing schemes.6. To set up a working group to study and evaluate the preservation of selectedhousing scheme(s) to reflect the above criteria, and/or their listing under the threecategories - i) Public Housing Projects, ii) Government Quarters, iii) Private HousingDevelopments.7. To set up a platform for public voice and suggestions.8. To review proposals on new density allocation and house-type for existingHistorical Housing Development Schemes, when densifying the existing housingscheme. 62

17Zoning & Categorisation of Heritage Buildings/Sites17.1 This chapter reviews heritage zones and the categorisation of heritage buildings/sites published in KLCP2020 that were not presented in KLDSP2040.17.2 Overall Vision for the Future of Heritage Buildings in Kuala Lumpur17.2.1 KLCP2020’s focus for heritage buildings is on those within the designated heritagezones (KLCP2020: Vol 1;9.3, Vol 2; 4.3). The overall direction/vision for other heritage buildingswithin Kuala Lumpur remains unclear. There are listed/unlisted heritage buildings outsidethese zones with qualities worth preserving and in need of heritage incentives. It is evidenthere that a comprehensive inventory of all the heritage buildings/sites within Kuala Lumpuris urgently required before an overall heritage framework can be conceived.17.3 The Role of DBKL’s Design Review Panel17.3.1 KLCP2020: 9.3b Managing and Monitoring Heritage Zones and Buildings mentionsthat design proposals within heritage zones are assessed by DBKL’s Design Review Panel.The role of this Panel in relation to heritage buildings/areas however, are not outlined. Itsscope should be extended to heritage buildings in non-heritage zones. Presumably, thePanel will invite heritage experts from various fields. A permanent seat for a representativefrom the Department of National Heritage (JWN) will ensure all heritage aspects are takeninto consideration. Emphasis should be given on design sensitivity towards the authenticityof a heritage building/site, its impact on historic characters and settings – visual integrity/impact on heritage assets included.17.4 Submission to DBKL & Consent from Department of National Heritage (JWN)17.4.1 KLCP2020: Vol 2; 4.3.7: Application for Planning Permission within Heritage Zonesrequires Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) to be conducted. As recommended in Chapter5, HIA reports should not be limited to those within the heritage zones but to also cover alltypes of buildings and sites with heritage values, regardless of location.17.4.2 KLCP2020: Vol 2; 4.3.4: Category 1 Heritage Buildings: mentions that proposals forCategory 1 buildings shall be referred to the Department of National Heritage (JWN). Itshould be noted that under the National Heritage Act Section 40 (3), those neighbouring tolisted buildings within a 200 meter distance (especially new developments), must also gainconsent from JWN as these proposals may affect the significance of listed buildings.17.4.3 KLCP2020: Vol 2; 4.3.7: Demolition outlines that buildings destined for demolitionshall be recorded/measured with a report submitted to DBKL. Records should be kept inthe Kuala Lumpur Library for public access.17.4.4 The role of the Heritage Commissioner and submission procedures between theDepartment of National Heritage and DBKL must be made clear to applicants so that theyare aware of the National Heritage Act’s implications. DBKL personnel in-charge must be63

equipped with knowledge of the National Heritage Act (2005) to be able to offer generaladvice to applicants. Our past experience with DBKL’s personnel confirms that not all arewell versed.17.5 National Heritage Act (2005)17.5.1 Implications of the National Heritage Act must be incorporated into KLDSP2040. Forexample, the Act requires control of development within a 200-meter distance from a listedbuilding. A diagrammatic overlay of these parameters onto the master plan will demonstratethese restrictions better.17.5.2 There ought to be a full list of heritage buildings that have been gazetted underthe Act, updated from time to time. We note that up to December 2018, 73 buildings withinKuala Lumpur’s boundary have been listed as ‘National Heritage’ and ‘Heritage’ by JWN. Wehave attached a list of these buildings in Appendix C as reference.17.6 Inclusion of Cultural Heritage as a Heritage Category17.6.1 KLCP2020 makes mention of three heritage categories, i) Heritage Zone; ii) HeritageBuildings; and iii) Heritage Sites. The categorisation seems to focus on tangible architectural/natural heritage assets, ignoring elements that have to do with Kuala Lumpur’s culturalheritage, such as religious events/rituals, cultural activities and old trades. What makes aplace is not only its buildings. Outdoor eateries and street stalls for example, are also partof Kuala Lumpur’s lively cultural scene. All intangible aspects that make a place uniqueshould be preserved and categorised as well to ensure the place sustains its significanceand character.17.7 Categories of Listing for Heritage Buildings/Sites17.7.1 Listing is not a preservation order. It implies that a listed building consent must beapplied to make alteration, extensions within the planning guidance. DBKL should produceits own comprehensive list of heritage buildings/sites based on special criteria that reflectsKuala Lumpur’s unique heritage character and history, followed by a strategic programof listing priorities. Only then balanced decisions can be made to retain a site’s historicsignificance against other issues such as building function or condition.17.7.2 There are many heritage elements that are unique to Kuala Lumpur worth consideringfor listing/categorisation (see following list). Their listing will reflect Kuala Lumpur’strue identity and help develop suitable approaches and policies for conservation. Somecategories that DBKL could consider: i. Built Heritage a) Modern Architectural Heritage b) City Heritage 64

c) Historic Housing Development Schemes d) Planned & Unplanned Traditional Villages e) Heritage Schools f) Historic Infrastructure e.g. old lamp posts, phone booths, manhole covers, fence. e) Historic Signages ii. Cultural Heritage a) Archaeological Heritage b) Historic Cemeteries c) Historic Religious Centres d) Historic Recreational Fields e) Religious/Cultural Activities f) Food Culture g) Traditional Trades/Unique Business Establishments h) Art Heritage iii. Natural Heritage a) Heritage Trees b) Hillsides17.7.3 Definition in KLCP2020: 9.25 for Heritage Buildings Category 1 – “buildings/sitesregistered under the Ancient Monuments Act 1976 and National Heritage Act 2005.” Somebuildings/sites however are marked wrongly on KLCP2020’s heritage zone maps. Thecriteria for Heritage Buildings Category 2 & 3 are also vague. This may create confusionamong owners as their properties may be placed under irrelevant assessments whenapplying for planning permission. Errors should be corrected in the gazetted KLCP2020 toavoid disputes (refer to notes on maps at the end of this chapter, pp. 69-76).17.7.4 Category3 seems to encourage facade preservation.There are manyinteriorelementswithin old shophouses that make a building authentic. We suggest that assessments arecarried out on a case to case basis, and where possible, encourage original features e.g.airwells, to be retained. Note that suitable repair methods must be applied for Category2 &3. Any installation or additions must remain sensitive to historic envelopes and originalinterior features.17.8 Special Character Zones17.8.1 KLCP2020: Vol 1; 9.3a: Special Character Zone describes ‘Special Character Zone’as “areas with more recently developed shophouses within Chow Kit, Jalan TuankuAbdul Rahman...”. However, KLCP2020’s Malay version does not translate this descriptionwell –“kawasan dengan pembangunan rumah kedai baharu di kawasan Chow Kit, JalanTuanku Abdul Rahman...”. ‘Pembangunan rumah kedai baharu’ implies ‘new shophousedevelopments’. The designated Special Character Zones actually contains a good stockof heritage shophouses, though fast dissapearing. We suggest a revision to the criteria65

for Special Character Zones, taking into consideration the area’s unique environment anddistinct character.17.8.2 There are two areas within the city centre worth considering as Special CharacterZones: i. The Pudu Market area, which is still a bustling wet-market centre adjacent to vibrant street malls and speciality businesses. ii. Jalan Brunei with its period shop-houses, printing and old hair saloon activities.17.8.3 Areas within old commercial hubs such as the old towns centres of Sungai Besi,Sentul, Bangsar and Batu are also worth considering as Special Zones (Chapter 11).17.9 Bukit Persekutuan as a Heritage Zone17.9.1 Bukit Persekutuan or Federal Hill has long been associated with housing quartersbuilt for government bureaucrats, associated with aristocratic localities. The housingarea closer to Jalan Travers was the earliest, and the houses were referred to as FederalQuarters, in reference to housing units developed by the administration of Selangor andthe Federated Malay States. It was originally established in 1896 as a residential area withbungalows to house high ranking government officers serving in the FMS administration.Since the early 1900s the road which led to these bungalows was known as Federal Road(now Jalan Persekutuan). In 1952 the government housing scheme was expanded and thewhole area was officially named Federal Hill in commemoration of the Federation of Malaya(1948). The streets in this new government estate were named after the Malayan States –Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Johor, and Perlis as there werealready streets in Kuala Lumpur named after the remaining four states at the time. Note thatJalan Pulau Pinang’s name was added on at a later period (the existing Penang Road in townwas translated to Jalan Pinang in the 1960s).17.9.2 In 2007, a survey of buildings in Bukit Persekutuan was carried out by Badan WarisanMalaysia. 113 single and double-storey government quarters were identified, the majoritystill in fair to good condition and some still housing presently-serving government officers.There are three properties belonging to the royal households of Kedah, Negeri Sembilan andPerak. The remaining are some private enclaves and a few institutional buildings includingthe one which today houses the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS). While there are somevariations in design between the single and double-storey quarters, there are very strongsimilarities in typology, materials and finishes and most would have been constructed in the1950s. None of these buildings individually demonstrate high architectural values. However,collectively, their historical, architectural, cultural and social significance lies in their value asan intact example of residential quarters built to house government servants in the periodfollowing the Japanese Occupation, the revitalisation of the country and the formation of theFederation of Malaya in 1948, leading to the Independence. This ensemble of governmentquarters is probably the largest remaining group of a building typology from this period andit therefore represents a highly significant part of our nation’s architectural history and as 66

such must be retained either as houses, or adapted for new uses if necessary.17.9.3 The historical value of the hill is significant as it is a part of nation building and theurban forest may have the largest clusters of 113 units of 1950s design bungalows. Thebiodiversity of the hill – 234 forest plants (in 82 families), 97 wild species, 37 planted species,8 endemic flora species and 21 threatened flora species; 8 types of mammals, 9 amphibians,13 reptiles, 77 birds; 34 families of insects made up of 17 species of moths, 42 species ofbutterflies, 22 species of dragonflies and damselflies, 2 species of cicadas, 1 species ofstick insect and 2 species of fireflies. Many of such areas are however not gazetted witha stronger protection other than the permanent forest reserves like Bukit Nanas, Bukit Sg.Besi, Bukit Dinding, Bukit Sg. Puteh and Kota Damansara Community Forest. Even with aforest reserve title, infrastructure still goes through it like in Bukit Sg. Puteh (power lines andhighways). The importance of Bukit Persekutuan and other green areas to the increasingrecreational needs of Kuala Lumpur’s growing 1.2 million urbanites and 6.7 million Outer KL/Klang Valley population, which is less than half of the required 12% of the land area.17.9.4 Historically, this forgotten historical site is synonymous and complements withthe nearby historical sites pertaining to the country’s independence like the Tugu Negara,Dataran Merdeka, Parliament Building and Stadium Merdeka. Summary of Recommendations 17: Zoning & Categorisation of Heritage Buildings/Sites 1. Complete an inventory of all heritage buildings/sites within Kuala Lumpur. 2. Provide a full list of JWN’s listed buildings, updated from time to time. 3. State the overall vision for the conservation of all heritage/historical buildings in Kuala Lumpur regardless of location or listing status. 4. Allocate a permanent seat for Department of National Heritage’s representative on the Design Review Panel. 5. All proposals within 200m of a listed building to be submitted to JWN for consent. 6. Compulsory submission of measured drawings/record – keep in KL Library. 7. Provide training/courses on the National Heritage Act for DBKL’s personnel. 8. Incorporate implications of the National Heritage Act into KLDSP2040. 9. Survey and map out Kuala Lumpur’s cultural heritage – categorize accordingly. 10. Correct mapping errors in KLCP2020 for KLDSP2040 (refer to notes, pp.69-76). 11. Consider other heritage elements for listing/categorization that reflects Kuala Lumpur’s true identity. 12. Consider the Pudu Market and Jalan Brunei areas as Special Character Zones. 13. Consider Bukit Persekutuan (Federal Hill) as a Heritage Zone.67

Image: Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) 17a Mapping of UCS Bukit Persekutuan shows remnant forest, road, nature discovery trails and heritage buildings – appropriate as a Heritage Zone. Source: UCF Booklet, MNS. 68

Jalan Tuanku Abdul RahmanTo be considered as a Secondary HeritageZone as the stretch has a variety ofdecorative heritage shophouses (perhapsas many as those in Petaling Street/PekanSungai Besi), only that they are todayhidden behind signboards. The Raja BotMarket off Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman isalso a cultural heritage nucleus. Kwan Tung Cemetery There are other neighbouring historic cemeteries that are just as significant e.g. Hokkien Cemetery, Japanese Cemetery, Sinhalese-Buddhist Cemetery. 6699 KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.10

Parliament Building Enclave Tmn Warisan Tun Abdul Razak Enclavei. Footprint of the Parliament Building (1) not i. Masjid Bukit Aman (7), listed as Category 3 is a modern building.included. This is misleading. ii. Panggung Anniversary (a) in Taman Botani Perdana is also a heritage structure, built in conjunction with Malaysia’s 10th year celebration of Independence. iii. Tugu Negara (2) includes Taman Peringatan. iv. Laman ASEAN Sculpture Park (b), significant to the history of the ASEAN coalition, is a significant Art Heritage. b a c Carcosa Seri Negarae i. Carcosa Seri Negara was the name given to the hotel complex in 1989. Carcosa (3) was built in 1898. The King’s House (4), built in 1911 was subsequently named as Istana Tetamu and Seri Negara. The appropriate name for the Enclave would be either ‘Carcosa and Seri Negara Enclave’ or ‘Carcosa and Istana Tetamu Enclave’. ii. Other buildings within this enclave ought to be listed together as they belong to the same complex such as the old Guard House and servants’ quarters (c).Bukit Persekutuan Enclave dTo gazette the historic government housingquarters and green lung (e) as a Heritage Muzium Negara EnclaveZone. i. Only the original museum building (d) completed in 1963 is considered to be Category 1. Its ancillaries such as canteen and office blocks should not be marked in red. KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.11 7700

b a Dataran Merdeka Enclave i. Only the original Masjid Jamek building in the centre (1909) is a heritage building. ii. Old Industrial Court (6) occupies only the end lot. iii. Dataran Merdeka (the Padang) itself should be considered a heritage site. iv. Royal Selangor Club (24): only the centre building is historic. v. Buildings marked in green next to Loke Chow Kit’s House at Jalan Tangsi (22) do not exist. vi. Hospital Tanglin (26): mark heritage structures only. vii. Include Northern Goods Yard Fence at Leboh Pasar Besar (a) and Victoria-Era fountain at Jalan Raja (b).cOld KL Railway Station Enclave Stadium Merdeka Enclavei. Suleiman Building (16) – modern ancillary i. Not all structures within Victoriabuildings should not be marked red. Institution’s compound (19) are heritageii. To include the old metal bridge (c). buildings.7711 KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.12

St. John’s Cathedral Enclavei. Category 1 mapping of St. John’s Institution(1) should not include buildings within theSt. John’s Cathedral.Jalan Tun H.S Lee Enclavei. Sin Sze Ya Temple (a) and Guang DiTemple (b) should at least be underCategory 2, if not Category 1.a Petaling Street Enclave c i. Rex KL (c), what remains of it, is not a historical building. b ii. Gurdwara Sahib Police (d) should be included. iii. Consider placing Chinwoo Stadium (e) within Stadium Merdeka enclave. ed KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.13 7722

a ec b dJalan Raja Laut Enclavei. Sultan Suleiman Club marked in blue (5) isactually Dewan Sultan Suleiman.ii. Consider the old Federal and CapitolCinemas (a & b) under Category 3.iii. Include Hoeh Beng Buddhist Temple (c),Gurdwara Tatt Khalsa Diwan (d) and PasarRaja Bot (e) as cultural heritage sites.7733 KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.15

Jalan Doraisamy Enclave All buildings marked as having non-heritage value. Is there not one that could be considered under Category 3? a Masjid India Enclave b i. Consider including Masjid India (a) and Wisma Yakin (b) enclave as culturalc heritage sites. i. OCBC Bank at junction of Jalan Melayu and Jalan Tun Perak (c) is not a heritage building. KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.16 7744

Jalan Pudu Enclave i. Jalan Pudu is a long stretch. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to name it as ‘Jalan Pudu Lama Enclave’, as the heritage building concentration (in this map) is along Jalan Pudu Lama. ii. To include the old Bungalow, No. 44 Jalan Pudu Lama (a) as a heritage building and the Court Hill Temple (b) as a cultural heritage site. b a7755 KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.17

Brickfields Enclavei. Major heritage buildings missing from themap e.g. churches, temples, Junior MGS.ii. Update map - Vivekananda Ashram hasbeen listed by JWN. KLCP2020: Vol 2; Figure 4.18 7766

18Conclusion18.1 The KLDSP2040 is more comprehensive compared to the gazetted KLCP2020. Itcovers a wider range of subject matters with focus on key areas and is less pretentious inits overall vision.18.2 Weak policies stem from poor database and analysis. Until a comprehensivedatabase is set up, the heritage component of KLDSP2040 will remain vague, and maymisdirect strategies to protect what is perceived to be historical and heritage by localcommunities. Mapping of all Kuala Lumpur’s heritage assets, be it tangible or intangible,has to be comprehensive and integrated, with a concerted effort by all stakeholders.18.3 The focus of KLDSP2040 is on regeneration, protection of trees, using heritage andculture as tools, all of which would affect Kuala Lumpur’s heritage assets if the frameworkis not detailed up. Plans in KLDSP2040 are also proposed without reference to contoursand rivers, which may mislead the public.18.4 A coherent approach towards the protection and conservation of heritage within thenext 20 years would serve Kuala Lumpur better. A new goal, Rooted in Heritage will ensureall developments that are to take place in the future will place priority on the protection,strengthening and enhancement of Kuala Lumpur’s heritage, commensurate with its statusas the capital city of Malaysia. Our key recommendations for improvements are as follows:01 Kuala Lumpur – the Heart of the Nation1. Introduce protection and enhancement of heritage as one of KLDSP2040’s primary goals – Goal 3: Rooted in Heritage.2. A comprehensive Kuala Lumpur Heritage Plan to respond to future challenges in the city’s heritage preservation and protection.3. A special heritage plan for national monuments/symbols and sites related to the formation of Federation of Malay States, Federation of Malaya and Federation of Malaysia – Bukit Persekutuan included.4. Conduct a thorough study on how to regain Dataran Merdeka’s social significance.02 History of Kuala Lumpur1. Kuala Lumpur Library to play a central role in researching Kuala Lumpur’s planning history – establish a repository of old documents and photographs, open to public.2. Include narratives related to Kuala Lumpur’s role as a capital centre and venue for events that led to Independence as part of Chapter 2’s timeline. Corrections upon verification of historical facts presented in KLDSP2040.3. Preserve existing names of streets/buildings/places within the city and encourage new street names to link with the site’s history.77

03 Heritage Conservation for Sustainability1. To establish a Conservation Office that shall look into safeguarding Kuala Lumpur’s heritage in all aspects.2. Training and capacity building for long-term management and best practice conservation for the preservation of Kuala Lumpur’s cultural heritage.3. To form an Advisory Committee to develop strategies in achieving SDG11.4 and effectively protecting Kuala Lumpur’s heritage.4. Increase public engagement sessions in matters related to the city’s heritage.5. Adopt relevant content from KLDSP2040: SV 2.2 Increasing Active and Creative Use of Urban Space under Goal 3: Rooted in Heritage.04 Kuala Lumpur as A City for All1. Carry out a detailed analysis on Kuala Lumpur’s built heritage.2. Include an overall statement of Kuala Lumpur’s heritage architecture, its values and significance in KLDSP2040.3. Bring forward documents/materials that would bind the community together into public domain.4. Outline broader definitions for Kuala Lumpur’s heritage to encourage inclusivity and diversity.05 Authenticity and Sensitivity1. Introduce/promote the concept of authenticity in Kuala Lumpur’s heritage conservation.2. Emphasise on sensitivity towards existing heritage/historical elements when addressing new design interventions.3. Discourage design replication of old buildings.4. DBKL Tourism Bureau to explore heritage tourism products, services and experiences that revolve around Kuala Lumpur’s historical authenticity.5. Heritage Impact Assessment/Statement to be made compulsory for all types of heritage buildings/sites.6. An open public forum to engage stakeholders and public to assess and understand the Heritage Impact Assessments.06 Economic Values1. Extend Inventory of Old (Heritage) Buildings to cover all aspects, not limiting it to only those in need of reactivation.2. Give emphasis on authenticity and sensitivity in guidelines. 78

3. Make a clear difference between restoration and adaptive reuse terms, as it affects the potential and limitation of a historic building/site.4. Outline terms in relation to maintenance and conservation of old buildings that are to be redeveloped.5. Force-acquirement of abandoned heritage buildings to be explored.07 Heritage Incentive Schemes1. Explore means to provide financial assistance to heritage building owners/ stakeholders who wish to conserve their properties.2. Introduce Cultural Heritage Incentive Tools/Schemes.3. Establish a public fund for the conservation of heritage buildings.4. Apply Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).5. Introduce 100% minimum Tax Exemption for conservation/restoration of heritage buildings.08 Cultural and Creative District1. Elaborate on KLCCD plans further and share with the public.2. Take into consideration existing self-organised cultural and creative clusters in other areas.3. Change KLCCD’s title to ‘Kuala Lumpur Cultural and Creative District’.4. Absorb a portion of KLCCD into Goal 3: Rooted in Heritage; to be expanded under the recommended Kuala Lumpur Heritage Plan, which extends to other areas.5. Stronger emphasis on strategic economic plans for the creative district under Goal 1: Innovation and Production. KLCCD Precincts6. Extend KLCCD’s south-west boundary to Bukit Persekutuan.7. Provide financial assistance to historic religious centres within the district to repair/ conserve/maintain their historic properties. Heritage Building Classification8. DBKL to produce a comprehensive list of heritage buildings based on Kuala Lumpur’s own unique criteria.9. Include Angkasapuri building on Kuala Lumpur’s heritage list and ensure its conservation in the Media City plans. Heritage Schools10. Add three heritage schools along Jalan Hang Jebat into KLCCD. All schools within the district should receive the same programming11. Under Goal 3: Rooted in Heritage, include a special program for all heritage 79

schools within Kuala Lumpur.12. Outline architectural and historical significance of heritage schools and provide assistance on how to manage/maintain their historic properties. Creative District13. Ensure policies to tackle possible issues of inequality are looked into in advance.14. Policies to also focus on enhancing the lives of present communities in the district.15. Include/invite established cultural institutes/organisations such as Temple of Fine Arts, ASWARA, Yan Keng Benevolent Drama Society, Hainan Association to play a role.16. Look into Central Market, Wisma Yakin and Dataran Merdeka as anchors for the Creative District.17. Include cultural and creative tourism community e.g. tour operators and hospitality services as part of the creative sector.09 Old Town Centres1. Conduct public engagements, cultural mapping, surveys in old town centres to produce effective heritage strategies under the Kuala Lumpur Heritage Plan.2. Produce a comprehensive urban design framework for future developments, taking the Kuala Lumpur Heritage Plan into account.3. Safeguard local intangible cultural heritage values via local community involvement in determining the direction of future developments.10 Urban Archaeology1. Introduce planning policies that are supportive of urban archaeology with possible placement under the recommended Goal 3: Rooted in Heritage.2. Conduct survey/mapping to identify potential urban archaeological sites (within and outside designated heritage zones) to produce a historic environment record of Kuala Lumpur.3. Conduct public archaeology/heritage engagement programs where relevant.4. Create awareness among Key Developers on the importance of Kuala Lumpur’s archaeo-history.5. Include requirements for archaeological investigations in Heritage Impact Assessments with appropriate desk-based assessments and field evaluations.6. Call for the return of Kuala Lumpur artefacts that are currently under the care of other States or countries. 80

11 Intangible Heritage1. Conduct a comprehensive research on Kuala Lumpur’s intangible heritage, including contemporary pop cultures – involve cultural mapping to identify existing cultural characters to form detailed basis for heritage-focused recommendations.2. Establish a Kuala Lumpur Museum.3. Work closely with other agencies to preserve and facilitate transmission of Kuala Lumpur’s intangible heritage - set up a Training Centre within the heritage zones/ KLCCD.4. Produce policies to allow spatial accommodations that support the city’s urban culture e.g. hawker’s centre, religious processions, march band competitions.5. Conduct further study on existing cultural sites and activities in Kuala Lumpur: • Map out religious celebration areas/routes (e.g. Thaipussam procession route). • Map out existing food centres/outdoor eateries (.e.g. Medan Selera Sri Bunus, relocated from Jalan Benteng in the 1980s).6. Maintain/preserve spaces that are occupied by cultural activities – improving quality of places without taking away their essence.7. Recognise historical cultural organisations as part of Kuala Lumpur’s intangible heritage.8. Engage with museums and interpretation sectors to produce a strategic heritage plan that articulates Kuala Lumpur’s intangible heritage well.12 Cultural Urban Tourism1. To consider the introduction of sustainable urban tourism indicators with appropriate implementation mechanism.2. To widen the definition of urban tourists to include domestic and resident.3. To conduct a collaborative cultural mapping exercise in various enclaves, neighbourhood and suburban areas in Kuala Lumpur to record and demonstrate their cultural characteristics.4. To consider introducing a public-transport based commuter belt of heritage tourism trails and routes.5. To develop thematic heritage trails and encourage local participation in suburban areas and neighbourhoods, enhanced with the use of technology.6. Cultural and heritage intepretation outputs to be supported by creative sectors working in the Creative District.7. Reconfirm labels in KLDSP2040: IP1.2; Figure 3.16.81

13 Historic Landscape Klang-Gombak River Confluence as Kuala Lumpur’s Genius Loci1. View the Klang-Gombak river confluence as Kuala Lumpur’s genius loci and list/ nominate it as a cultural heritage site.2. Conduct cultural mapping in heritage districts along the rivers.3. Improve the concrete drain-like appearance of the Klang and Gombak rivers, especially at the confluence. 4. Share detailed information of the Riparian Ecosystem Rehabilitation with the public. Preservation of Hillsides5. Take measure to preserve and protect the hillsides of Kuala Lumpur.6. Include Bukit Persekutuan and Bukit Petaling as forest reserves under Conservation Forest Management.7. Restore the Bukit Nanas Tunnel as part of Taman Eko Rimba Bukit Nanas’s asset.8. Include all existing hills and forest reserves in Kuala Lumpur as water catchment areas.9. Make Environmental Impact Assessment compulsory for new developments surrounding the forests – make available to the public/stakeholders.10. Extend green connectors (parks, urban spaces) to blue corridors (River of Life) and heritage trails to Bukit Petaling and Bukit Persekutuan to bind their health- promoting, healing and therapeutic effect on the community.11. Reforestation of the hills with original and native species of trees that resembles the name of the hills e.g. Bukit Petaling with the Petaling Tree (Ochanostachys amentacea). Historic Recreational Fields12. Recognise established recreational fields as part of Kuala Lumpur’s historic urban landscape and protect them from other kind of development prospects. Historic Cemeteries13. Protect cemeteries from development and improve derelict areas.14. Produce a Historic Cemetery Preservation Plan for all historic cemeteries.15. Explore Cemetery Tourism as part of Cultural Urban Tourism.16. Conduct detailed mapping/survey/recording of historic cemeteries and their gravestones.

14 Heritage Trees1. Add early urban landscape planting as one of the Tree Preservation Criteria.2. Make Transplanting of Trees compulsory should they be affected by new infrastructure demands.3. Establish an Arborist Unit within DBKL’s Landscape Department.4. Introduce a comprehensive Heritage Tree Scheme: i) Heritage Trees, ii) Heritage Avenues, and iii) Tree Conservation Areas).15 Traditional Villages ‘Unplanned and Planned’1. To provide successful examples/models throughout the world so as to demonstrate positive outcomes.2. Redefine criteria for Traditional Village with a focus on Malaysian identity, using preservation of traditional villages to improve social integrity and promote a sense of identity.3. To set up a working group to study the values of preserving heritage villages and townships (group of buildings) to reflect the tangible and intangible heritage of cultural history and tradition of Kuala Lumpur hence, Malaysia. The study areas may include Kampong Bharu (Malay Enclave), Brickfields Residential Estate (Indian Enclave) and Jinjang New Village (Chinese Enclave).4. To encourage community participation (bottom-up approach) by setting up a platform within each village for public views and suggestions for their needs/ wishes.5. To set up a heritage trail program within traditional villages to promote tourism for social and cultural sustainability in support of initiatives developed amongst local experts and communities.16 Historic Housing Development Schemes1. To study statutory criteria to select historic housing projects for heritage listing and protection. Reference to be made to successful listing abroad, such as the United Kingdom. The criteria could cover architectural and historical interests. Reference can be made to the 7 top post-war housing estates listed in the UK as guidance to identify potential types of housing schemes in Kuala Lumpur suitable for listing.2. Evaluate the following when making listing decisions for historic housing schemes: • Group values. • Fixtures and features of a building and curtilage buildings. • The character or appearance of conservation areas.3. General principles for the selection of buildings/housing projects may include: • Age and rarity. • Buildings that are less than 30 years old. • Aesthetic merits.83

• Selectivity. • National interest. • Stage of repair.4. Consider benchmark private housing developments as ‘City Heritage’.5. DBKL to arrange further discussions with the Department of National Heritage (JWN), Ministry of Housing & Local Government and other relevant authorities who may manage or own shortlisted housing schemes.6. To set up a working group to study and evaluate the preservation of selected housing scheme(s) to reflect the above criteria, and/or their listing under the three categories - i) Public Housing Projects, ii) Government Quarters, iii) Private Housing Developments.7. To set up a platform for public voice and suggestions.8. To review proposals on new density allocation and house-type for existing Historical Housing Development Schemes, when densifying the existing housing scheme.17 Zoning and Categorization of Heritage Buildings/Sites1. Complete an inventory of all heritage buildings/sites within Kuala Lumpur.2. Provide a full list of JWN’s listed buildings, updated from time to time.3. State the overall vision for the conservation of all heritage/historical buildings in Kuala Lumpur regardless of location or listing status.4. Allocate a permanent seat for Department of National Heritage’s representative on the Design Review Panel.5. All proposals within 200m of a listed building to be submitted to JWN for consent.6. Compulsory submission of measured drawings/record – keep in KL Library.7. Provide training/courses on the National Heritage Act for DBKL’s personnel.8. Incorporate implications of the National Heritage Act into KLDSP2040.9. Survey and map out Kuala Lumpur’s cultural heritage – categorize accordingly.10. Correct mapping errors in KLCP2020 for KLDSP2040 (refer to notes, pp.69-76).11. Consider other heritage elements for listing/categorization that reflects Kuala Lumpur’s true identity.12. Consider the Pudu Market and Jalan Brunei areas as Special Character Zones.13. zzzConsider Bukit Persekutuan (Federal Hill) as a Heritage Zone. 84

AppendicesA Bukit Persekutuan Statement of SignificanceB Kampung Lee Kong Chian: Significance & RecommendationsC JWN’s List of Heritage Buildings in Kuala Lumpur, 20188855

ABukit Persekutuan Statement of SignificanceThe Forgotten Historical, Architectural, Cultural, Natural and Social Significance of BukitPersekutuanFederal Hill, now known as Bukit Persekutuan, was originally established in 1896 as aresidential area with bungalows to house high ranking government officers serving in theFMS administration. Since the early 1900s the road which led to these bungalows wasknown as Federal Road (now Jalan Persekutuan). In 1952 the government housing schemewas expanded and the whole area was officially named Federal Hill in commemoration ofthe Federation of Malaya (1948). The streets in this new government estate were namedafter seven Malayan States – Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu,Johor, and Perlis as there were already streets in Kuala Lumpur named after the remainingfour states at the time. Jalan Pulau Pinang’s name was added on later (Penang Road in townwas translated to Jalan Pinang in the 1960s).Bukit Persekutuan or Federal Hill has long been associated with housing quarters built forgovernment bureaucrats, associated with aristocratic localities. The housing area closerto Jalan Travers was the earliest and the houses were referred to as Federal Quarters, inreference to housing units developed by the administration of Selangor and the FederatedMalay States. In 2007, a survey of buildings in this area was carried out by Badan WarisanMalaysia. 113 single and double-storey government quarters were identified, the majoritystill in fair to good condition and some still housing presently serving government officers.There are three properties belonging to the royal households of Kedah, Negeri Sembilan andPerak. The remaining are some private enclaves and a few institutional buildings includingthe one which today houses Malaysian Nature Society (MNS).While there are some variations in design between the single and double-storey quarters,there are very strong similarities in typology, materials and finishes and most would havebeen constructed in the 1950s. None of these buildings individually demonstrate higharchitectural values. However, collectively, their historical, architectural, cultural and socialsignificance lies in their value as an intact example of residential quarters built to housegovernment servants in the period following the Japanese Occupation, the revitalization ofthe country and the formation of the Federation of Malaya in 1948, leading to Independence.This ensemble of government quarters is probably the largest remaining group of thisbuilding typology from this period and it therefore represents a highly significant part of ournation’s architectural history and as such must be retained either as houses, or adapted fornew uses if necessary.The building where MNS is housed today appears to be the only building remaining fromthe earlier era as a 1921 map of Kuala Lumpur shows the footprint of a bungalow on thesame location. It would therefore constitute the oldest building in this area and must bepreserved as a demonstration of the historical and architectural continuum of the area.Historically, this forgotten historical site is synonymous and complements with the nearbyhistorical sites pertaining to the country’s independence like the Tugu Negara, Dataran 86

Merdeka, Parliament Building and Stadium Merdeka. Apart from the historical aspects, BukitPersekutuan is the last remaining sizeable green lung in the Kuala Lumpur city center whichis an important point for conservation.On 27 July 2017, the soft launch of the MNS UCF Bukit Persekutuan Community Centrewas officially opened by Dato’ Hj. Nor Akhiruddin bin Mahmud, Director-General of theForestry Department Peninsula Malaysia, representing the Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Environment. The Urban Community Forest (UCF) project was in partnership with ThinkCity.The UCF Bukit Persekutuan is an initiative to empower local communities to protect theirgreen spaces in the City. This is a novel endeavour. MNS President Henry Goh said BukitPersekutuan, with a lush secondary forest and low-density build-up, could serve citydwellers as a place to appreciate nature and for recreation and in so doing improve theirwell-being. “Nature enriches our lives, and for stressed city people, UCF Bukit Persekutuancan be a place for a quick recharge. Come and enjoy the cooler temperature under theshady trees, plant some seedlings or help replant the forest, or take short hikes along thetrails; there’s plenty to see and enjoy,” Goh said.The things to see and enjoy include an impressive range of flora and fauna within such asmall area, found during the survey in 2007. They include bats, six species of amphibians, 65types of birds, 39 types of butterflies and moths, and two types of fireflies. These biodiversitysurveys will continue to be carried out in Bukit Persekutuan, alongside the development ofthe Forest Trees Nursery and scheduled enrichment of the forest, as well as the maintenanceof the four nature trails (Heritage-Thunbergia, Cempedak, Pulai, Jungle Fowl trails). Visitorscan also enjoy the facilities at the MNS UCF Community Resource Centre, including holdingmeetings and events at the Auditorium.It is also very important to appreciate Bukit Persekutuan working in consonance with TamanBotani Perdana and Taman Tugu to reduce the carbon emission in a growing metropolis andameliorate the effect of heat islands in the highly urbanised situation. The forest cover willhelp to absorb and reduce the torrential rain water run off and prevent flash floods.As Kuala Lumpur strives to attain the World Class City status and achieve a Low CarbonSociety Blueprint by 2030, it is utmost important to ponder and appreciate the role of BukitPersekutuan in the context of Nation Building and the Malaysian History.87

Brief Historical Timeline for the Federal Quarters on Bukit Persekutuan (Federal Hill)1896Formation of the Federated Malay States (FMS).Resident-General of FMS, Sir Frank Swettenham commanded a new residence that cameto be known as Carcosa on top of the hill overlooking Sydney Lake in the Public Gardens;also requested for new housing quarters for Federal officers to be erected. Selangor StateEngineer, Charles Edwin Spooner requested areas around Carcosa, the Public Gardens andResidency Hill to be reserved for Federal Quarters. At the same time, a housing developmentthat came to be known as West Folly Hill, to the north east of Carcosa (around today’s TuguNegara and Parliament Building area) was developed.1897/1898A large vote was taken to build the Federal Quarters. Selangor Public Works Department,led by Selangor State Engineer, C.E Spooner and sometimes Henry Franklin Bellamy weretasked with the designs. Designs for the quarters varied, depending on whether they weremeant to accommodate single or married clerks. Semi-detached quarters were meant formarried officers.These buildings were economically designed, portraying the period they were built. Most ofthe buildings built late 1890s to early 1900s were of timber, with brick stumps or columns onthe lower floor, and verandahs. Notes from archival documents mention that the buildingswere not necessarily built at the same time, e.g. two were completed at a time as opposeto a group of twelve. The earliest group of housing quarters on Federal Hill and alongDamansara Road resemble those in the Lake Gardens area (Taman Botani Perdana).In 1899, a tender for new quarters at Damansara Road was given out. A contractor, Ting Bokwho lived at No.29 Java Street bidded for the tender for $5,200 each, completion periodabout 6 months. These quarters were reserved for clerks. The Malaysian Nature Society(MNS) HQ’s construction could be part of this group of buildings, but if not, the constructioncost/period would have been similar.1903/1904Owners of lot 797, 798, 799 & 800 on Damansara Road eventually accepted compensationfrom the Government for the resumption of their lands to form a Federal Reserve. This areawas later developed when the Federal Housing Scheme was extended in 1950s onwards.1905The road from Damansara Road to the Federal Quarters was officially named Federal Road.Its name was translated to Malay, post independence. Today it is known as Jalan Persekutuan.1908 88

Malaria among occupants of the quarters on Federal Hill and in the neighbourhood of PublicGardens. Drainage works improved to prevent malaria. Reference to the area as FederalHill is made by Dr. Fletcher in his notes. The name ‘Federal Hill’ appears loosely in manydocuments from this year onwards, especially in the 1920s.19211921 Kuala Lumpur Map shows a group of 10 Federal Quarters off Federal Road.Malaysian Nature Society’s HQ was actually part of a group of Federal Quarters built alongDamansara Road. Its access was separate from Federal Road. The three buildings oppositeare long gone (marked in Map 1935 as No. 41, 43 & 45). Damansara Road has also beenwidened, positioning the MNS HQ closer to the main road. MNS HQ is the only remainingstructure from the early Damansara Road Federal Quarters.1922Fences that were erected to keep out cattles were taken down to allow grass cutting andupkeep of coolies. The houses in the area had large compounds, with no fence, separated incertain areas by rows of trees or shrubs. This promotes openness and neighbourhoodliness.Mid-2000s onwards, each house compound were fenced up for security reasons.1947Serious shortage of government quarters in Kuala Lumpur. Quarters for Federal SeniorOfficers planned at Federal Hill. Class V quarters in the area estimated to cost between$35,000 to $40,000.1952Government Housing Scheme expanded – new quarters built within the Federal Reserve.Whole area officially named Federal Hill in commemoration of the Federation of Malaya(1948). Roads in the area named after states in Malaya on 12 October 1953. State namesselected were Selangor, Kedah, Kelantan, Johor, Negeri Sembilan, Perlis and Terengganu.Kuala Lumpur already had a Malacca Street, Perak Road, Penang Road and Pahang Road sothese State names were excluded. However, Jalan Pulau Pinang’s name was later added on.Jalan Kelantan was constructed, connecting MNS HQ’s to the houses on top of the hill andFederal Road.The new group of housing quarters for Senior Officers were modern homes with an openplan, foldable doors to maximize openings that led to covered verandahs, high ceiling, fullwidth louvered windows and chimneys. These buildings took into account all factors thatwould improve cross ventilation. Two open bedrooms on the first floor with bath tubs. Thesebuildings are similar to the government quarters built in Jalan Pegawai (Taman U-Thant),also built in the 1950s.89

Image: Heritage Output LabImage: mnsgreenliving.blogspot.com Image: Google Maps, 2020 A1 MNS HQ, Jalan Kelantan, built in Jalan Selangor government This 1935 Kuala Lumpur Map 1890s by FMS Government. quarters, built circa 1950s. presents the original contextual setting of the Federal Quarters of Federal Hill-Swettenham Road (Carcosa)-Public Gardens. Government quarters along Jalan Damansara have all been demolished except for the building occupied by MNS today, marked as No. 26 in this map (circled in green). 90

Image: Arkib Negara Malaysia91

A2Site Plan of Federal Hill dated1953 showing quarters built inthe 1900s (not coloured) andthose in the 1950s (coloured). 92

BKampung Lee Kong Chian: Significance & RecommendationsKampung Lee Rubber a.k.a Kampung Lee Kong Chian is the only traditional Chinese estatevillage within Kuala Lumpur that survives until today, inheriting its original set up and withhigh level of community spirit. It is imperative that Kampung Lee Kong Chian be quicklyidentified as a traditional estate village that must be protected for the preservation of its richintangible heritage and history. A Maintenance and Management Plan of Kampung Lee KongChian together with incentives to maintain its dilapidated timber houses and village facilitiesare paramount. Today, the 3rd-generation children and even 3rd-generation tenants thinkthat their grandfathers were the real owners, and claim the right to stay at Kampung LeeKong Chian forever.The subject site is under pressure of ownership change and therefore subject to developmentpressures under the mercies of a new/different land owner. With the site being identified asa traditional planned village and a heritage site, any development will abide with the need ofpreserving Kampung Lee Kong Chian, the spirit of our forefathers.BackgroundThe village is named after the founder of Lee Rubber Co., the late Tan Sri Lee Kong Chian.Kampung Lee Kong Chian is located at 5th mile, Jalan Gombak, Kuala Lumpur. In 1927,Tan Sri Lee Kong Chian set up a rubber-smoking business known as Lee Smoke Housein Muar, Johor. A year later, he bought a rubber plantation at the foot of Bukit Timah Hillin Singapore and named it Furong Garden. It was named after the village he was born inNan’an county, Fujian, China. In the same year, he set up a company called Nam Aik. Soonafter that in the 1930s, he established other smoking businesses in Kuala Lumpur such asthe Lee Smoke House (Lee Rubber Factory) at 5th mile Jalan Gombak.Tan Sri Lee Kong Chian carried a good name of one who cares and provided housing forhis workers to live near his factory. According to one of the 3rd generation children, thereis a kind of concept called ‘Tao Geh’ – ‘the boss’ (tao: head) treating his workers (geh orfamily) at the same time (simultaneously) from the heart with qi (simultaneously xin; heart).In 1930s, Lee Rubber Co. allocated approximately a 200-acre land in Gombak for a LeeRubber Factory building, 300-400 units workers’ housing, and facilities to take care of theworkers’ welfare. Facilitiy Managers managed these facilities such as community halls,kindergartens, Chinese temple, school, basketball court – used by residents at all levels.Under the guidance of an appointed supervisor, the workers were allowed to choose aresidential plot within the estate, build their own houses and were allowed to stay in thisvillage for a very small rent – RM10; RM5; RM2 per month to date, as the lease of right to stay.These 300-400 units of single-storey vernacular timber houses were built without fences –no demarcation of plot sizes. Each family planted flowers and plants in front and vegetablesat the side plots of their land.The estate village planning system under Lee Rubber Co. had no dedicated open spacesor children playground. The neighborhood’s garden is the basic green lung of the villagewhere residents practice tai chi, cycle or have picnics. However, it has successfully created93

Image: Mr. Gan of Kampung Lee Kong Chian B1 Entrance gate to Kampung LeeImage: Mr. Gan of Kampung Lee Kong Chian Kong Chian, 5th Mile, Jalan Gombak. B2 A street scene in Kampung Lee Kong Chian, decorated with lanterns during the Chinese New Year celebrations. 94

a sense of belonging, health, security and safety. During the 13 May 1969 incident, KampungLee Kong Chian remained safe and no one was harmed although it is located next to aMalay neighbourhood and amidst a predominantly Malay reserve area. This shows thatthe residents live in harmony with their Malay neighbours. Moreover, residents of KampungLee Kong Chian take pride that they know one another well. Together, they were vigilant tocheck that not even a sticker is posted on lamp posts by any ‘Ah Long’. The Police Stationrecorded that Kampung Lee Kong Chian was not found among their records of crimes ascompared with other neighbourhoods. There were hardly any break-ins from within as theyknow each other well.Even though the Lee Rubber Factory, a brownish metallic smoke-building with louveredmetal roof, across Jalan Gombak – opposite Kampung Lee Kong Chian was relocated in the1970s, the 300-400 timber houses within Kampung Lee Kong Chian remained as homes forthe employees and their families. The factory was demolished as the effluent dischargedfrom the factory polluted the Gombak River. A supermarket and shopshouses were built inits place. A school built for the residents, SJK (C) Nan Yik Lee Rubber, remains until today.Although the single-storey timber houses built in the 1930s seems to be dilapidated andthe roads are not paved, the village is not abandoned. It remains a vibrant Chinese villagewhere a few generations of grandparents, children and grandchildren get together eachyear, at the community hall and the Chinese temple, to celebrate major festivals such asthe Chinese New Year and the Mid-Autumn festival every year. This would be nights ofdances and singing, celebrating the occasions with joy and pride in their success to giveback to society. The spirit of togetherness and unity prevailed as the residents gather toraise funds for worthy causes. During the March/April 2020 period of Movement ControlOrder, the Kampung Lee Kong Chian Rukun Tetangga Committee had been busy sendingfood supplies to the residents, especially the aged. Future UncertaintiesTan Sri Lee Kong Chian was one of the most successful Malayan businessmen during hislifetime, dubbed Rubber & Pineapple King. Lee Rubber Co. was among the biggest rubberplantation companies in South East Asia. Lee also planted pineapples and manufacturedbiscuits. He was also a banker who undertook mergers to form OCBC Bank Ltd. in 1932. In1952, Tan Sri Lee Kong Chian set up the Lee Foundation. University Malaya is said to be oneof its beneficiaries. Tan Sri Lee Kong Chian passed away in 1967 at the age of 64 and lefthalf of his fortune to the Foundation. His youngest son passed away in August 2015 while hiseldest son, Lee Seng Gee, died in May 2016. Lee’s second son would be 97 years old thisyear.The Kampung Lee Kong Chian is under pressure as land ownership may change andtherefore subjected to development pressures under the mercies of a different land owner.About 10 years ago, the Lee Foundation arranged a meeting with Kampung Lee KongChian’s residents. They were informed of the possible relocation to live within 5km away.95