Performative Preservation: The Systematic Neglect of Penang’s Built Heritage

The January 2026 announcement that Penang has gazetted ten local dishes and six intangible cultural items as state heritage was met with much fanfare. While the aroma of Nasi Kandar and the spectacle of Chingay are undoubtedly part of the Penang soul, this move serves as a convenient distraction from a grim reality. For fifteen years, the state has sat on a powerful legislative tool—the State of Penang Heritage Enactment 2011—while the physical markers of our history, from pioneering tombs to colonial fountains, have been left to rot or face the wrecking ball. This is not conservation; it is a PR-led shell game where the "soft" heritage that cannot be destroyed is prioritized over the "hard" heritage that is vanishing before our eyes.

---

The "Soft Heritage" Smokescreen vs. Physical Erasure

The 2026 Paradox: The gazetting of Hokkien Mee and festivals in early 2026 represents a "low-stakes" victory for a government unwilling to tackle the complexities of urban land value. By their very nature, recipes and cultural practices are resilient; you cannot demolish a taste, and you cannot bulldoze a tradition that lives in the minds of the people. They are "safe" heritage—gazetting them costs the state nothing and offends no developers.

In contrast, built heritage—the statues, buildings, and graves of those who built this state—is finite and fragile. A dish can be cooked anywhere, but once the War Memorial at Ayer Itam or the tombs of our pioneers are cleared for a luxury condominium, that history is erased forever. The state’s focus on the intangible is a deliberate smokescreen, creating a facade of "Bravo" moments while the real estate market continues to devour the physical fabric of Penang.

The Legislative Inertia (2011–2026): The timeline of inaction is staggering. Between the passing of the Penang Heritage Enactment in 2011 and the first actual gazettement of built heritage in 2025, there was a 14-year vacuum. For over a decade, the state has pointed to its "Heritage Inventory" of over 2,500 items as proof of its commitment.

However, as heritage advocates from the Penang Heritage Trust, Straits Heritage Inquest and George Town Heritage Action have long argued, an inventory is merely a "wish list." It is an academic exercise with no legal "teeth." By refusing to move these 2,500+ items into the official State Heritage Register, the government has essentially left the gates unlocked. Identification without gazettement is a hollow gesture that provides a false sense of security while offering zero protection against a determined developer.

The "Paper Tiger" Effect: This inertia has turned the 2011 Enactment into a "paper tiger." In the high-stakes world of Penang property development, a listing in an inventory is not a hurdle; it is a minor suggestion. Without the formal gazettement that triggers strict regulatory controls and heavy penalties for unauthorized demolition, the state’s built heritage remains at the mercy of "accidental" damage or "safety-related" demolitions. The state has proven it can gazette items—as seen with the 2026 food list—which makes the decade-long refusal to gazette buildings a matter of political will, not administrative capability.

---

Selective Protection and the Evidence of Institutional Bias

The Narrow Lens of 2025 Gazettement: When the state finally exercised its powers under the 2011 Enactment to protect built heritage in late 2025, the results were telling. The evidence demonstrates a remarkably narrow focus: the only physical structures to be formally gazetted into the State Heritage Register were seven 19th-century mosques.

1. Masjid Kapitan Keling (1801)
2. Masjid Melayu Lebuh Acheh (1808)
3. Masjid Jamek Alimsah Waley (1811)
4. Masjid Pintal Tali (1820)
5. Masjid Jamek Titi Papan (1841)
6. Masjid Jamek Benggali (1845)
7. Masjid Jamek Perangin (1890) 

While these mosques are undoubtedly deserving of the highest protection, the data shows a glaring omission. In a state that prides itself on a "multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-religious" identity, the fact that zero secular, Christian, Hindu, or Chinese-heritage buildings have been granted the same state-level legal status suggests a selective application of the law. When the first and only use of a protective enactment in 14 years favors a single category of religious architecture, it raises difficult questions about whether the State Heritage Council is operating on conservation merit or a specific political agenda.

The "Forgotten Pioneers" and Civic Silencing
The evidence of this reluctance is most visible in the continued vulnerability of Penang’s civic landmarks. Anyone with "common sense" can see that the following items are of national significance, yet they remain conspicuously absent from the State Heritage Register:

• Civic Landmarks: The Obelisk at the Esplanade, the War Memorial at Ayer Itam, and the Queen Victoria Memorial Statue. These are the literal anchors of Penang’s public space, yet they possess no specific state-level gazettement to prevent future "repositioning" or neglect.
• The Architects of Penang: The statues and fountains of pioneering personalities—Captain Francis Light, Chung Keng Quee, Koh Seang Tat, and Chung Thye Phin—remain legally "unprotected" by the state.
• Ancestral Erasure: Perhaps most alarming is the state’s failure to gazette the final resting places of the state’s founders and pioneers. The tombs of Koh Lay Huan and Khoo Thean Teck are treated as mere "plots" rather than heritage sites.

As highlighted by the Penang Heritage Trust, Straits Heritage Inquest and the Penang Heritage Trust, and others, the lack of gazettement for these multi-ethnic sites leaves them perpetually exposed. The state has demonstrated it has the "pen" to sign gazette papers for dishes and festivals and mosques; its refusal to use that same pen for the monuments of our diverse pioneers suggests a deliberate choice to let certain histories remain "unofficial" and, therefore, disposable.

---

The "Sia Boey" Scandal and State Hostility to Oversight

The Sia Boey Case Study of Development Over Discovery: The historical record regarding Sia Boey (the old Prangin Market) provides the most damning evidence of the state’s true priorities. Despite the site’s immense archaeological significance—including the discovery of a 19th-century canal lock and basin—the state government’s initial trajectory was focused on high-impact development. The evidence shows that the state intended to transform this historic site into a transport hub or a "premier" arts district, often sidelining the archaeological findings that demanded a halt to construction.

The Lim Mah Hui Incident Warning to Dissenters: The state’s reaction to internal and external oversight during the Sia Boey controversy was telling. When then-city councillor Dr. Lim Mah Hui exercised his civic duty by alerting UNESCO to the potential threats to the World Heritage Site buffer zone, the state did not respond with a collaborative review of conservation standards. Instead, the administration "came down hard" on him.

This aggressive stance toward a heritage advocate serves as a chilling precedent. It demonstrates that the state views the Heritage Enactment not as a shield to protect our history from developers, but as a hurdle to be managed. The hostility shown toward those who seek international oversight reveals a government that prefers "managed" heritage—heritage that doesn't get in the way of its mysterious master plans. Islander Penangites continue to wait for their Local Plan, a statutory right they have been waiting for decades since the 1976 enactment of the Town and Country Act.

The "Development First" Doctrine: The Sia Boey incident, combined with the state’s extreme reluctance to gazette built heritage, points to a "Development First" doctrine. While the state uses the rhetoric of being a "heritage champion" on the global stage, its domestic actions show a consistent pattern: avoiding any legal designation (gazettement) that might restrict its ability to develop, demolish, or "repurpose" land. This is why high-density approvals continue to dwarf historic buffer zones; as long as a building is just a "line in an inventory" rather than a "gazetted site," the state maintains the ultimate flexibility to prioritize concrete over culture.

---

Failure of Federal-State Synergy

The National Heritage Act 2005 Gap: The state’s track record suggests a strategy of "outsourcing" its conservation responsibilities. By relying almost exclusively on the Federal Government to gazette landmarks under the National Heritage Act 2005, the Penang state government effectively washes its hands of local accountability. The evidence indicates that if a building is not designated as "National Heritage" by the Jabatan Warisan Negara (JWN), the state treats it as legally "disposable." This creates a dangerous loophole: if the Federal government overlooks a site of local significance, the state allows it to remain in a legal limbo where it is unprotected by the 2011 Enactment, despite the state having the full autonomy to act.

Built Heritage Gazetted under National Heritage Act 2005: The following major buildings and sites in Penang are gazetted at the Federal level by the National Heritage Department (JWN). Note that many sites previously protected under the Antiquities Act 1976 were migrated to this Act. 

2007 (Major Initial Gazettements):
1. St. George’s Church, Lebuh Farquhar
2. Kapitan Keling Mosque, Lebuh Pitt
3. Penang Museum and Art Gallery, Lebuh Farquhar
4. Fort Cornwallis, Padang Kota Lama
5. Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion, Leith Street

2009:
6. Suffolk House, Jalan Air Itam

2012:
7. Leong San Tong Khoo Kongsi, Cannon Square

2024:
8. Penang High Court Building, Lebuh Light 

Other Noted National Sites (Gazette Date Varies):
9. Batu Bersurat Cherok Tokun, Bukit Mertajam 
10. City Hall and
11. Town Hall, Esplanade 

Restoration as a Substitute for Protection: In 2026, the state highlighted federal funding for the restoration of ten landmarks, including the Queen Victoria Memorial Clock Tower and the Syed Al-Attas Mansion. However, as heritage activists frequently point out, throwing money at a restoration project is a temporary fix, not a permanent legal safeguard. Restoration without gazettement is merely a cosmetic upgrade; it does not grant the building the "Heritage Site" status that would protect it from future policy shifts or land-use changes. The state’s preference for "upgrading" over "gazetting" is a clear sign that it prefers projects with high visibility and low legal commitment.

---

Conclusion: The Call for a Neutral, Comprehensive Register

Final Indictment: Performative Conservation
The current state of heritage governance in Penang can only be described as performative. The state has mastered the art of "heritage theater"—celebrating the food and festivals that attract tourists while refusing to sign the papers that would protect the actual soil and stone of our history. The 14-year delay in using the 2011 Enactment, the aggressive suppression of advocates during the Sia Boey scandal, and the selective gazettement of only one type of religious architecture point to a government that is more interested in optics than actual preservation.

Demands for Accountability
To move beyond this "soft heritage" smokescreen, the state must take immediate, non-partisan action:

• Immediate Gazettement of the "Secular and Multi-Ethnic List": The statues, fountains, and civic monuments of pioneers like Light, Chung Keng Quee, and Koh Seang Tat must be entered into the State Heritage Register immediately to reflect Penang’s true diversity.
• An End to Gatekeeping: The State Heritage Register should not be a tool for political or institutional bias; it must be an objective record of all built heritage that meets the criteria of the 2011 Enactment.
• Heritage Over Profit: The state must stop viewing heritage advocates as enemies of progress. A transition is needed from "Heritage for Tourists" (food and festivals) to "Heritage for History"—giving the physical fabric of the city the legal permanence it deserves before the final remnants of our multi-cultural past are paved over.

CORRECTION

I apologise for incorrect information. Earlier I had written that Built Heritage Gazetted under National Heritage Act 2005 were:

2007 (Major Initial Gazettements):
1. St. George’s Church, Lebuh Farquhar
2. Kapitan Keling Mosque, Lebuh Pitt
3. Penang Museum and Art Gallery, Lebuh Farquhar
4. Fort Cornwallis, Padang Kota Lama
5. Cheong Fatt Tze Mansion, Leith Street

2009:
6. Suffolk House, Jalan Air Itam

2012:
7. Leong San Tong Khoo Kongsi, Cannon Square

2024:
8. Penang High Court Building, Lebuh Light (Gazetted as National Heritage)

Other Noted National Sites (Gazette Date Varies):
9. Batu Bersurat Cherok Tokun, Bukit Mertajam (Gazetted National Heritage)
10. City Hall and Town Hall, Esplanade

I have, since then found the Senarai Warisan Tapak Bangunan from the Jabatan Warisan Negara website and the SENARAI BUTIRAN WARISAN KEBANGSAAN MENGIKUT NEGERI for PULAU PINANG is:

BIL | TAPAK | TARIKH ISYTIHAR | TEMPAT ISYTIHAR

1 Gereja St. George: No. 1, Lebuh Farquhar, Georgetown,
Pulau Pinang 6/7/2007 Parlimen
Jalan Parlimen, Kuala Lumpur

2 Masjid Melayu Leboh Acheh: Lebuh Acheh 17/10/2018 MaTiC Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur

3 Masjid Kapitan Keling: 92, Jalan Masjid Kapitan Keling,
10200 Pulau Pinang 17/10/2018 DITTO

4 Leong San Tong Khoo Kongsi: 18, Lebuh Cannon, 10200 Pulau Pinang 17/10/2018 DITTO

5 Mahkamah Tinggi Pulau Pinang: Lebuh Farquhar, 10200 Pulau Pinang 17/10/2018 DITTO

6 Penang Free School: George Town, Pulau Pinang 17/10/2018 DITTO

There appear to be only 6 buildings listed, not 10 per my earlier web search, and no information on statues, fountains, pillar post boxes, tombs or any other kind of monument or built heritage that is not a building.

As for those gazetted under the State of Penang Heritage Enactment, besides general news items, blogs etc., I cannot find any official list.