The Federal "Didly Squat": Colonial Bias and the Statutory Silence on 18th-Century Penang

The arrival of Captain Francis Light in 1786 is often treated by the National Heritage Department (JWN) as a historical starting gun—a convenient "Year Zero" that simplifies administrative paperwork. However, this colonial-centric timeline is a deliberate narrowing of the lens. The physical and archival evidence—from the 1734 foundation of Batu Uban by Nakhoda Intan to the 1740s stone censer at Tanjong Tokong—proves that Penang was a settled, multi-ethnic space at least decades before the East India Company claimed it.

Yet, since the inception of the National Heritage Act 2005, the Federal Government has done "didly squat" to validate this deep history. While they have gazetted ten sites—three more than the state’s abysmal record—this list is a testament to lethargy and selective memory. Most were simply "migrated" from the old 1976 Antiquities Act, representing zero new initiative to protect the actual foundations of the island.

---

Part 1: The Federal Failure: Ignoring Pre-1786 Evidence

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 Town Hall, Esplanade 

The Archival and Epigraphic Blind Spot: The Federal gazette list reveals a glaring obsession with the "High Colonial" era. By prioritizing the Penang High Court (2024), Suffolk House, and the City Hall, the JWN reinforces a narrative that Penang’s significance is tied solely to British administration. Meanwhile, the epigraphic evidence that challenges this "clean slate" myth is ignored.

The 1740s stone censer at the Sea Pearl Island Temple and the graves of Zhang Li and his sworn brothers are primary historical documents. They are physical proof of a settled community existing decades before Light’s correspondence even mentioned the island. To leave these sites un-gazetted is to functionally support the erasure of indigenous and early migrant history.

Federal vs. State Race to the Bottom: While the Federal government’s ten sites technically "beat" the state’s recent effort, the victory is hollow. Between 2012 and 2024, the Federal authorities effectively went into hibernation, adding almost nothing to the National Heritage Register. This isn't a case of one government being more effective than the other; it is a "race to the bottom" where both tiers of government compete in their reluctance to protect anything that isn't a "safe," high-profile landmark.

The "Didly Squat" Reality: The reality of Federal oversight in Penang is one of performative preservation. The JWN acts as a repository for files rather than a guardian of history. By ignoring the documented history of the 1770s and 1780s—well-recorded in Light’s own early letters—the Federal government signals that Penang’s pre-colonial identity is not worth the legal effort. They have the evidence, they have the archives, and they have the sites; what they lack is the will to move beyond the colonial "starting gun."

---

Part 2: The National Heritage Act as a Shield for Inaction

To understand why the Federal Government (JWN) has done "didly squat" for sites like the Tanjong Tokong censer or the Batu Uban settlement, we have to look at the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645). Rather than using this law to protect our 18th-century roots, federal authorities use its technicalities as a shield to avoid the responsibility of gazetting "difficult" or early history.

1. The "State Consent" Stumbling Block (Sections 27 & 30): The JWN frequently hides behind the requirement to "consult" and obtain "consent" from the State Authority. This has become a convenient excuse for perpetual "tai chi." When a site like the 1740s Sea Pearl Island Temple or the pioneer tombs comes under threat, the Federal government claims its hands are tied by state-level inertia. By treating "consultation" as a veto power for the state, the JWN abdicates its national responsibility, allowing significant sites to rot in an administrative no-man's land where neither tier of government is willing to take the lead.

2. Physical Integrity vs. Epigraphic Reality (Section 67): Federal authorities often employ a rigid "bricks and mortar" interpretation of heritage. They tend to dismiss 18th-century evidence—such as the 1740s stone censer or the graves of pioneering settlers—as "fragmentary" or mere "objects" rather than "National Heritage" sites. By narrowly defining a site as a complete, standing building, they effectively disqualify the most critical proofs of Penang’s early migrant and indigenous history. This legal hair-splitting ensures that while a 19th-century colonial courthouse is protected, the 280-year-old physical evidence of the island's foundation remains legally invisible.

3. The "High Significance" Threshold (Section 11): The JWN sets a biased bar for what qualifies as "National" significance. Under Section 11, they prioritize sites that fit a specific, often Eurocentric, foundational narrative. A British military fort or a colonial legal building is automatically deemed "nationally significant," while a 1730s settlement at Batu Uban is sidelined as "locally significant." This subjective gatekeeping suggests that the history of the working-class pioneers who built Penang is less "national" than the history of the administrators who merely governed them.

4. "Intention to Gazette" Ghosting (Section 31): Finally, the Federal Government possesses the power to issue a "Notice of Intention to Gazette," which provides immediate, temporary protection while a full assessment is conducted. Yet, they have "ghosted" this power for decades. There is no legal reason why the JWN could not have issued a notice for the Batu Uban Mosque (1734) or the pioneer tombs the moment they were identified. The refusal to use this specific section proves that the "research takes time" excuse is a stall tactic; they choose not to protect these sites because they do not want to interfere with the state’s development pipeline.

---

Part 3: The Untapped Power: How the JWN Could Overcome its Own Excuses

While the Federal Government frequently hides behind administrative procedures, the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645) actually contains several potent mechanisms that could be used to override state-level inertia—if the political will existed.

1. Overcoming "State Consent" (Sections 2, 67, and Concurrent Powers): The Federal Government’s reliance on Section 30 as a "veto" for the state is legally disingenuous. Heritage is a Concurrent List matter under the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, meaning both Parliament and State Legislatures have power. More importantly, Section 67 gives the Federal Minister the power to declare any site of extraordinary significance as "National Heritage." If a site like the 1734 Batu Uban settlement is vital to the national story of Malaysia's foundations, the Federal government has the authority to lead—not wait for a state "no objection" that may never come.

2. Protecting Early History as "Heritage Objects" (Sections 2 & 49): The technical argument that a 1740s stone censer is just a "fragment" is easily defeated by the Act’s own definitions. Under Section 2, an "object" includes any moveable antiquity or historical item. Section 49 gives the Commissioner the direct power to declare such items as "Heritage Objects." This means the Zhang Li censer could be gazetted as a National Heritage Object tomorrow, bypassing land-title disputes and state zoning laws entirely. By failing to use Section 49, the JWN is making a choice to let 18th-century proof remain unprotected.

3. The "Emergency Shield": Interim Protection Orders (Section 33): The JWN often claims that gazetting early sites is impossible because "research takes time." This is a lie. Section 33 allows the Commissioner to issue an Interim Protection Order (IPO) for any site potentially qualifying for registration. This provides an immediate 90-day freeze on all works. If the Federal government truly valued the graves of our pioneers or 18th-century settlements, they would use this 90-day shield to stop the bulldozers while the paperwork is completed. Their refusal to do so is a refusal to act as a guardian.

4. Mandatory Conservation & Repair (Sections 43 & 45): Finally, the Federal government has the "teeth" to prevent the "demolition by neglect" of 18th-century sites. Under Section 45, the Commissioner can carry out repair works on a heritage site and bill the owner, while Section 44 allows for Monument Preservation Orders to be issued even pending a site’s full registration. The tools exist to save the physical fabric of Penang’s founding era; the Federal government simply prefers to keep them locked in the toolbox.

---

Conclusion: The "Ho Khua" of Federal Oversight

In the parlance of Penang Hokkien, the Federal Government’s record is pure "Ho Khua" (good appearance). Having ten sites on a list—three more than the state—looks good in a report to UNESCO or the Ministry, but it is "Boe Hoe Chiak" (tasteless and empty) when it comes to actual protection.

By ignoring the documented history of the 1730s–1780s and hiding behind the technicalities of the National Heritage Act, the JWN has become a facilitator of historical erasure. They have the archive, they have the law, and they have the mandate. Without exercising the full weight of the 2005 Act to protect our 18th-century foundations, the Heritage Commissioner and the entire establishment are merely expensive wallpaper—sitting around and doing nothing while the very evidence of who we are is 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.