Historic Perak Cave Temples Face Hidden Legal Protections
Subverting Eviction: How Act 645 Shields Malaysia’s Unlisted Cultural HeritageOn January 11, 2022, Sin Chew Daily reported on imminent eviction threats facing 19 historic cave temples in Perak, a situation that highlighted a deeper, largely overlooked legal reality. While public focus centered on securing official gazettement, a purposive reading of Malaysia's National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645) confirms that these sites already possess significant, unlisted protection. This analysis outlines a legal framework demonstrating how Act 645 and Act 388 render unauthorized destruction of these cultural treasures a criminal offense, rendering the eviction notices technically void.
Keywords: Perak cave temples, Act 645 Malaysia, National Heritage Act 2005, Kinta Valley heritage, statutory interpretation Act 388, Nam Thean Tong eviction, Dong Hua Cave Temple, Perak Cave, illegal demolition liability, Malaysia heritage law discovery.
Article Outline
I. The Catalyst: The 2022 Sin Chew Report and the Threat to Perak’s Cave TemplesII. The Engine of Interpretation: Act 388 and the Purposive Approach
III. Textual Proof: The Myth of the "Formal Gazette" Exploded
IV. The Dual Roles of the National Heritage Commissioner
V. The Legal Fallout: Personal Liability and "Infective Validity"
VI. Conclusion: Reclaiming the Narrative for the Perak 19
For more details on the initial report, see Sin Chew Daily's coverage.
I. The Catalyst: The 2022 Sin Chew Report and the Threat to Perak’s Cave Temples
On 11 January 2022, Sin Chew Daily published a report that sent shockwaves through Malaysia's cultural conservation community. The Perak Land and Mines Department had quietly issued 30-day eviction notices to 19 historic cave temples scattered across the Kinta Valley. State administrators weaponised the National Land Code, classifying these centuries-old institutions as mere squatters and unlawful occupiers of state land.
The enforcement sweep targeted irreplaceable cultural pillars. Among the 19 sites were landmarks like Nam Thean Tong, established in 1867, and Sam Poh Tong, dating back to the 1890s. These are not modern, impromptu structures; they are sacred repositories of history deeply carved into Perak’s iconic limestone karsts, existing long before the bureaucratic machinery of the modern state was even conceived.
The immediate public reaction was a mix of terror and frantic diplomacy. Temple committees, heritage advocates, and local politicians scrambled to plead for administrative mercy, begging the state government to halt the bulldozers and grant formal heritage status. In response to the massive outcry, the Perak state government implemented a temporary freeze on the eviction orders and established a special committee to review safety guidelines and land lease regularisation.
However, this compromise exposed a glaring, fundamental misconception shared by the authorities, the public, and the media alike. Everyone operated under the false assumption that because these 19 temples lacked a formal federal gazette notice, they were completely defenseless against state-sanctioned clearance. For twenty years, a critical legal reality has been staring the nation in the face, completely unnoticed: these temples did not need to beg for a formal declaration to be protected under federal law.
II. The Engine of Interpretation: Act 388 and the Purposive Approach
To understand how the 19 Perak cave temples are already protected under federal law, one must first look away from the National Heritage Act 2005 itself. Instead, we must turn to the master key of Malaysian jurisprudence: the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388).
Act 388 is not an optional guideline. It is the mandatory, statutory engine that dictates exactly how every single piece of legislation in Malaysia must be read, understood, and applied by government officials, lawyers, and judges alike.
For decades, both local municipal councils and the general public have suffered from a severe case of administrative tunnel vision. They look at a law like the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645) and apply a strict, mechanical literalism. They assume that if a historic site does not appear on an official, stamped government registry, then it does not legally exist in the eyes of the law.
This lazy literalism is a profound legal error. Act 388 explicitly outlaws this narrow perspective through two powerful sections: Section 17A and Section 15.
Section 17A: Outlawing the Absurd Result
The first pillar of this statutory engine is Section 17A of Act 388. It explicitly mandates that in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object.
The Federal Court of Malaysia has repeatedly used Section 17A to strike down narrow bureaucratic literalism. The apex court has established that the statutory purposive approach completely overrides traditional common-law literal interpretations.
When you apply Section 17A to Act 645, the mechanical, literal argument completely collapses. If the fundamental purpose of Act 645 is the conservation and preservation of the nation's history, then interpreting the law to mean "unregistered heritage can be bulldozed tomorrow without a permit" completely defeats that purpose.
Such a reading creates what judges call an absurd result—a loophole where a developer could legally destroy a 150-year-old temple before civil servants finish processing its paperwork. Section 17A exists precisely to prevent this kind of administrative failure.
In the next part of this section, we will explore Section 15 of Act 388 and look directly at the Long Title of the National Heritage Act to reveal the broad blueprint that protects these 19 cave temples.
Section 15 and the Blueprint of the Long Title
The second pillar of this statutory engine is Section 15 of Act 388, which elevates an Act’s Long Title from an ornamental preamble to a powerful diagnostic tool. Under Malaysian law, the Long Title is not decorative text; it is a direct statement of legislative intent that must be used to resolve any ambiguity regarding a law’s true objective.
When we read the Long Title of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), the broad blueprint of its conservation mandate becomes immediately clear:
“An Act to provide for the conservation and preservation of National Heritage, natural heritage, tangible and intangible cultural heritage, underwater cultural heritage, treasure trove and for related matters.”
Parliament deliberately constructed a multi-layered shield. Of the five distinct domains listed, only the first—National Heritage—is capitalized, signaling its unique status as a formal, politically gazetted designation. The remaining domains—such as natural heritage and tangible cultural heritage—are written in the generic lowercase.
This linguistic choice is legally significant. It proves that the scope of the Act extends far beyond state-funded, gazetted landmarks. It recognizes that natural and tangible cultural heritage exist objectively as facts of reality. They do not need a civil servant's stamp to become heritage; they are protected by the law simply because they exist.
By forcing us to read Act 645 through the lens of its Long Title, Act 388 completely transforms our understanding of the statute. It shifts the National Heritage Act from a passive guest list for premium monuments into a broad, proactive shield designed to defend the nation's historical fabric from unauthorized destruction.
III. Textual Proof: The Myth of the "Formal Gazette" Exploded
The purposive framework established by Act 388 is not a loose theory; it is rooted directly in the black-letter law of the National Heritage Act 2005 itself. When we look past the bureaucratic assumptions and open the statute to Section 2 (Interpretation), we find the ultimate textual checkmate. This section serves as the statutory gatekeeper, defining the vocabulary of the entire Act and revealing an explicit legislative mandate that completely explodes the myth of the "formal gazette."
In most administrative disputes, government officials fall back on the excuse that they cannot protect a site until it has been formally processed, approved, and stamped by the Minister. However, Parliament anticipated this exact form of bureaucratic passivity. Under Section 2, the statutory definition of the word "heritage" is written with absolute clarity:
“heritage” imports the generic meaning of a National Heritage, site, object and underwater cultural heritage whether listed or not in the Register;
The inclusion of the phrase "whether listed or not in the Register" changes everything. With those eight words, Parliament explicitly severed the legal existence of heritage from its administrative registration.
The law states that a historic site does not wait for a civil servant to stamp a ledger before it becomes heritage. It is already heritage under the law because of its intrinsic historical, cultural, or geological reality. The register is merely an administrative ledger for assets the federal government chooses to directly fund, restore, or manage; it is not a gatekeeper for legal protection.
The Doctrine Against Surplusage: Parliament Does Not Waste Words
To fully appreciate the strength of this textual proof, we must apply a foundational rule of Malaysian statutory construction: the presumption against surplusage (also known as the doctrine against redundancy). In Malaysian courts, it is an absolute rule that Parliament never enacts redundant words. Every single noun, comma, and sub-clause is presumed to have been inserted deliberately to achieve a distinct legal purpose.
Look closely at how Parliament structured the definition of "heritage" in Section 2, and notice how it perfectly mirrors the five domains established in the Long Title:
- a National Heritage (Mirroring Domain I: The formally gazetted, state-adopted assets)
- a site (Mirroring Domain II: natural heritage and Domain III: tangible cultural heritage sites)
- an object (Mirroring Domain III: tangible cultural heritage artifacts or buildings or monuments)
- an underwater cultural heritage (Mirroring Domain IV: Submerged historical relics)
If the mechanical, literal interpretation used by municipal councils were correct—if Act 645 only protected officially gazetted or listed landmarks—then the statutory definition would have stopped at item (i). Items (ii), (iii), and (iv) would be completely unnecessary and legally redundant.
Why would Parliament take the time to explicitly name "a site," "an object," and "an underwater cultural heritage" as separate, co-equal categories under the umbrella definition of heritage if they meant absolutely nothing without a gazette notice? To argue that unlisted sites have no protection is to accuse Parliament of writing meaningless text.
By categorizing these domains side-by-side as co-equals and stamping them with the phrase "whether listed or not," the legislature made its intention undeniable: the generic lowercase domains are protected based on what they are, not what they are labeled.
The Status of the Perak 19: Protected by Grammatical Absolute
When we apply this grammatical absolute directly to the 19 historic cave temples of Perak, the legal defense becomes clear. These institutions are not modern, makeshift structures built on a whim. Landmarks like Nam Thean Tong (1867) and Sam Poh Tong (1890s) are century-old sanctuaries integrated directly into the limestone karsts of the Kinta Valley. They fit the statutory definitions of Section 2 perfectly:
- They are natural heritage by virtue of their unique geological limestone cave formations.
- They are tangible cultural heritage sites and objects because of their decades of religious, architectural, and community history.
Because they inherently possess these qualities, they are legally recognized as "heritage" under federal law today, "whether listed or not in the Register."
The lack of a formal "Heritage" gazette notice is completely irrelevant. Any land office eviction notice issued under the National Land Code that treats these temples as simple squatters fails to recognize the overarching restrictions imposed by federal law. The state cannot use an administrative land code to bypass the preservation mandates of the National Heritage Act.
IV. The Dual Roles of the National Heritage Commissioner
To understand why this statutory architecture has remained dormant yet completely viable for twenty years, we must examine the engine of its enforcement: the Commissioner of Heritage. Under the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), the Commissioner is not merely a bureaucratic archivist tasked with updating a website or maintaining an aesthetic gallery of national landmarks. A deep, objective reading of the statute reveals that Act 645 splits the Commissioner’s institutional personality into two distinct, non-overlapping roles: The Objective Sentinel and The Subjective Parent.
This institutional duality is critical. The failure to distinguish between these two roles is precisely why municipal councils, developers, and even temple committees have suffered from an administrative blind spot since 2005. They have mistaken the Commissioner’s administrative ledger for the entire scope of the Commissioner’s criminal enforcement powers.
The Objective Sentinel: The Prosecutor of Heritage Crimes
The first and most critical role of the Commissioner is that of the Objective Sentinel. In this capacity, the Commissioner functions as a cultural law enforcement officer—an objective policeman and public prosecutor for Malaysia’s historical fabric.
This role is triggered automatically by the objective reality of a site's age, architecture, or historical significance. Because Section 2 explicitly defines "heritage" as including sites and objects "whether listed or not in the Register," the Commissioner’s duty to protect these assets is not a matter of administrative discretion. It is a mandatory statutory obligation.
When an entity attempts to damage, alter, or demolish a site that objectively possesses historical or natural heritage value—such as the 159-year-old Nam Thean Tong cave temple—the Objective Sentinel is legally bound to act. The penal sections of Act 645 do not require a site to be gazetted before an offense can be committed.
If a developer bulldozes an unlisted, century-old structure without a specific permit from the National Heritage Commissioner, they are committing a crime against "tangible cultural heritage." In this arena, the Commissioner does not need to "adopt" the site; the Commissioner simply has to police and prosecute the unauthorized destruction of it.
The Subjective Parent: The Administrator of the Ledger
In stark contrast stands the Commissioner’s second role: The Subjective Parent. This is the administrative, caretaker persona that the public is most familiar with. As a Subjective Parent, the Commissioner manages the official Register, coordinates federal funding, allocates grants for restoration, and dictates strict conservation guidelines for sites that the federal government has formally "adopted" through the gazettement process.
This is where the Ledger Fallacy occurs. Because the public and local land offices only see the Commissioner acting as a Subjective Parent to a few elite, gazetted landmarks, they falsely assume that the Commissioner’s protection only applies to those adopted sites.
They mistake the Register for the absolute boundary of the law. In reality, the Register is merely an administrative work ledger—a list of assets that have been formally brought under the state's financial umbrella.
By separating these two roles, the legal genius of Act 645 becomes clear. Parliament recognized that there is simply too much heritage in Malaysia for the federal government to fund, restore, or gazette everything. Doing so would be financially unsustainable and logistically impossible.
However, Parliament did not leave unlisted heritage defenseless. While the state may not act as a funding "Parent" to the 19 Perak cave temples, the Commissioner remains their statutory "Sentinel." Local councils and land offices do not have the legal authority to clear these historic cave temples under the National Land Code without bypassing the Objective Sentinel—an act that carries severe criminal consequences.
V. The Legal Fallout: Personal Liability and "Infective Validity"
When a local authority or an aggressive developer treats an unlisted historic site as a vacant lot, they do not just commit an administrative oversight—they step into a high-stakes statutory trap. The intersection of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645) and broader principles of Malaysian administrative and property law creates severe consequences for both corporate entities and individual decision-makers. By examining the true legal nature of the 2022 eviction notices issued against the Perak cave temples, it becomes clear that bypassing Act 645 corrupts the entire legal validity of any subsequent commercial development.
The Fundamental Illegality of the Eviction Notices
The 30-day eviction notices issued by the Perak Land and Mines Department were built on a flawed legal foundation. State authorities relied on the National Land Code (Act 828), viewing the temples as simple unlawful occupiers of state land. However, where a site objectively satisfies the criteria of "heritage" under Act 645—through century-old age, unique architecture, or deep cultural association—generic land administration powers are fundamentally limited.
Crucially, this limitation is not confined to preventing physical bulldozers. The Long Title of Act 645 explicitly demands the preservation of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. A historic temple cannot be severed from the living community that animates it. Forcing a century-old religious institution to halt its traditional services and evicting its practitioners constitutes a de facto destruction of its intangible heritage.
Under the doctrine of implied statutory limitation, a generic administrative power (like clearing state land) cannot be exercised in a way that directly violates or frustrates a specific, protective federal statute. Because Act 645 recognizes these 19 cave temples as protected "heritage" whether listed or not, any eviction notice designed to displace the community, halt their religious practices, or alter the physical site without an explicit permit from the National Heritage Commissioner is completely ultra vires—beyond the legal power of the state land office.
The notices are legally defective from inception. The state cannot use an administrative land code to execute a displacement that results in the criminal erasure of a living cultural ecosystem protected under federal law.
The Poisoned Tree: "Infective Validity" in Property Transactions
If a local council or developer ignores this framework and proceeds with unauthorized demolition or land clearance, they trigger a catastrophic chain reaction in property law. In Malaysian jurisprudence, established by landmark apex court rulings like Sungai Ara (2023) and Taman Rimba Kiara (2021), a project born from a statutory violation cannot be legally validated.
This creates a state of infective validity—a version of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applied to civil and commercial transactions:
- Void Development Orders: A municipal council cannot legally issue a Development Order (DO) or approve a Building Plan predicated on an illegal act. Any planning permission granted over an illegally demolished heritage site is fundamentally corrupted and void.
- Tainted Joint Ventures: Any commercial joint-venture agreements, corporate leaseholds, or land alienations stemming from that illegal clearance suffer from a permanent defect in title.
- Collateral Collapse: Because the initial clearance violated a federal penal statute, the entire corporate development scheme becomes legally unenforceable. Contracts collapse, and financing agreements can be frozen, leaving developers exposed to immense financial liability. The only party equity steps in to protect is the innocent, bona-fide end-home buyer via deferred indefeasibility under the National Land Code.
Piercing the Veil: Personal Liability for Decision-Makers
The most significant element of this framework is that Act 645 does not allow directors or professionals to hide behind a corporate or bureaucratic shield. The penal protections of the Act are direct and personal.
Under Section 112 and the broader enforcement architecture of Act 645, any individual who destroys, damages, or alters a heritage site without lawful authority commits a serious criminal offense. Because unlisted sites qualify as heritage under Section 2, unauthorized demolition triggers immediate personal liability.
If an aggressive development firm or an overreaching local council orders the destruction of a historic cave temple, the law pierces the corporate veil. Principal corporate officers, board directors, and professionals like architects and engineers can be held personally and individually liable. They face criminal prosecution, substantial fines, and up to 5 years in prison.
This reality shifts the balance of power. The moment corporate boards and state administrators realize that bypassing Act 645 exposes them to personal prison sentences rather than simple corporate fines, the push for aggressive redevelopment over historical sites faces an immediate stop.
VI. Conclusion: Reclaiming the Narrative for the Perak 19
For more than twenty years, Malaysia’s conservation movement has operated under a collective illusion. Heritage groups, temple committees, and even aggressive developers have operated under the assumption that a historic site has no legal rights until it is granted entry into the official federal Register. This narrow, bureaucratic literalism has forced communities into a position of administrative entrapment, leaving them to passively plead for official gazettement while facing eviction notices.
The purposive interpretation of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), anchored by the mandatory provisions of Act 388, completely dismantles this passive approach. The law reveals an active, blanket defense that has been hiding in plain sight since the statute was enacted.
By explicitly expanding the definition of "heritage" under Section 2 to include sites and objects "whether listed or not in the Register," Parliament created a silent, comprehensive shield. This structural framework ensures that the legal existence of a cultural asset is tied directly to its physical and historical reality, completely independent of ministerial approval or administrative paperwork.
For the 19 historic cave temples of Perak, this means their century-old role as pillars of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage grants them immediate protection under federal law. Local land offices and municipal councils can no longer weaponize the National Land Code to execute evictions, dismantle historic structures, or displace living religious communities. They cannot use generic land administration powers to circumvent the clear, protective mandates of a federal preservation statute.
This legal reality changes the risk landscape for those planning aggressive redevelopments. Independent professionals—including licensed architects, structural engineers, surveyors, and project managers—can no longer hide behind client briefs or administrative land office notices to shield themselves from liability.
Because Act 645 establishes broad penal protections that apply "whether listed or not," signing off on plans that alter, clear, or destroy an intrinsic heritage ecosystem exposes these professionals to severe consequences. Under Section 112, the law pierces professional and corporate veils, introducing personal criminal liability that carries up to five years in prison, along with professional misconduct charges and the potential loss of practicing licenses.
Any commercial development built on the unauthorized erasure of an intrinsic heritage site is deeply compromised from the outset. Under established principles of Malaysian administrative law, a project initiated through a violation of a federal penal statute cannot be legally validated.
This results in a state of infective validity, where any subsequent planning permission, Development Order, or land transaction becomes legally void. Corporate boards and joint-venture partners who ignore this framework face invalid commercial contracts and frozen project financing, leaving them exposed to significant civil and financial liability.
The 19 historic cave temples of Perak are not illegal squatters reliant on administrative convenience; they are fully protected historical repositories under Malaysian law. Moving forward, the goal of public advocacy must shift from passive pleading for official gazettement to the assertive enforcement of existing federal rights.
By recognizing and applying the true statutory purpose of Act 645, conservationists, legal professionals, and communities can use the law as a proactive shield, ensuring that Malaysia’s living cultural history remains protected for generations to come.
The entire article for your Straits Heritage Inquest blog is now fully drafted, incorporating your purposive statutory interpretation, the textual analysis of the co-equal domains, and the strategic target of professional liability.
Statutory Notice Template
This template is structured as a formal legal notice. It places the recipients under explicit statutory notice regarding the legal protections of unlisted heritage under Act 645 and Act 388. It outlines the direct personal criminal liabilities they face under Section 112 if they proceed with any enforcement, demolition, clearance, or planning approvals.
REGISTERED POST / BY HAND
DATE: [Insert Date]
TO:
- The Yang Di-Pertuan / President / Director
[Insert Name of Municipal Council / Land Office, e.g., Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh / Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Negeri Perak]
[Insert Official Address] - The Principal Board of Directors
[Insert Name of Development Company, if applicable]
[Insert Corporate Address] - [Insert Name of Principal Architect / Consultant]
[Insert Professional Registration Number, e.g., LAM/LJM Reg No.]
[Insert Company/Firm Name and Address] - [Insert Name of Principal Structural Engineer / Consultant]
[Insert Professional Registration Number]
[Insert Company/Firm Name and Address]
STATUTORY NOTICE OF PREEMPTIVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND DEFECTIVE VALIDITY PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005 (ACT 645) AND THE INTERPRETATION ACTS 1948 AND 1967 (ACT 388)
IN RE: The Intrinsic Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage Site Known As [Insert Name of Cave Temple, e.g., Nam Thean Tong Cave Temple], Located at [Insert Lot Number, Mountain Name, and Location, e.g., Gunung Rapat, Ipoh, Perak] (hereinafter referred to as "the Heritage Site").
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, acting for and on behalf of the Management Committee of [Insert Temple Name], hereby serve this formal Statutory Notice upon you in your personal, professional, and corporate capacities.
This Notice places you under explicit legal record regarding the overriding federal statutory protections governing the Heritage Site. It details the immediate personal criminal liabilities and civil consequences that will arise from any administrative action, eviction, enforcement, demolition, or professional sign-off intended to disrupt, alter, or clear this site.
1. THE INTRINSIC HERITAGE STATUS OF THE SITE (ACT 645, SECTION 2)
Take notice that the Heritage Site was established in [Insert Year of Establishment, e.g., 1867] and has operated continuously for over [Insert Age, e.g., 159 years]. By virtue of its antiquity, architectural integration into the limestone karst landscape, historical significance, and uninterrupted religious and cultural practices, the site objectively qualifies as Tangible Cultural Heritage (Site), Natural Heritage, and Intangible Cultural Heritage under the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645).
2. NO FORMAL GAZETTEMENET REQUIRED FOR LEGAL PROTECTION
Take notice that under Section 2 of Act 645, Parliament explicitly defines "heritage" as importing the generic meaning of a National Heritage, site, object, and underwater cultural heritage "whether listed or not in the Register."
Pursuant to the mandatory rules of statutory construction set out in Section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388), a law must be read to fulfill its underlying purpose of conservation and preservation. Therefore, the lack of a formal ministerial gazette notice or listing in the administrative ledger does not strip the site of its legal existence or protection under federal law. The Heritage Site is legally protected by fact of its historical and physical reality.
3. PERSONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR PROFESSIONALS AND DIRECTORS
Take notice that any unauthorized demolition, clearance, alteration, or disturbance of an intrinsic heritage site constitutes a direct criminal offense under Section 112 and the general enforcement provisions of Act 645.
The law pierces the corporate and bureaucratic veils. Independent professionals (licensed architects, engineers, and surveyors) and corporate board directors cannot claim immunity under client briefs or local land administration orders. Any professional who signs off on a Development Order (DO), Building Plan, or demolition order affecting this Heritage Site without a direct permit from the National Heritage Commissioner faces immediate personal criminal prosecution, up to five (5) years imprisonment, heavy fines, and the permanent revocation of their professional licenses.
4. THE DOCTRINE OF "INFECTIVE VALIDITY" AND VOID TRANSACTIONS
Take notice that under Malaysian administrative and land law, a project initiated through a violation of a federal penal statute cannot be legally validated.
Any administrative eviction notice issued under the National Land Code (Act 828) that results in the clearance or destruction of this heritage ecosystem is ultra vires and void from inception. Consequently, any subsequent planning approvals, Development Orders, land alienations, or commercial joint-ventures stemming from an unpermitted clearance will suffer from infective validity. The entire commercial transaction chain will be rendered legally defective and unenforceable, exposing all participating corporate officers and consultants to immense civil damages.
5. DEMAND AND DEMARCATION
We hereby demand that you immediately cease and desist from:
- Issuing, executing, or acting upon any eviction, clearance, or enforcement notices intended to disrupt the physical structure, land usage, or continuous religious services of the Heritage Site.
- Approving, certifying, or signing off on any planning permissions, structural interventions, or layout plans that encroach upon or alter the Heritage Site without the express written permit of the National Heritage Commissioner.
Failure to comply with this notice will be used as direct evidence in a court of law to prove prior knowledge, intent, and willful defiance of federal law. We will not hesitate to initiate immediate judicial review proceedings, seek permanent injunctions, and lodge criminal complaints with the police and the National Heritage Department against you individually and personally.
BE ADVISED ACCORDINGLY.
Signed,
[Insert Name of Chairperson/Secretary]
Management Committee of [Insert Temple Name]
Contact Details: [Insert Phone/Email]
Management Committee of [Insert Temple Name]
Contact Details: [Insert Phone/Email]
cc:
- The Commissioner of Heritage, Department of National Heritage (Jabatan Warisan Negara)
- The Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture Malaysia
- Board of Architects Malaysia (Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia)
- Board of Engineers Malaysia (Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia)
- Legal Counsel for the Temple Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment