Pudu Jail is part of the unique story of Kuala Lumpur's development - its history and its geography. It was originally located in an area well away from the city centre but more than a century later, with the growth of the city especially over the past four decades, the jail is sitting on "prime" land.

From reports in the media we understand that its demolition is part of a plan to reduce KL's traffic woes; it is apparently also to make way for a new shopping centre and residential high-rises.

While the building as an institution has a chilling history - one of brutality and crime - yet, it represents a part of the social history of KL. The preservation of Pudu Jail and its restoration and adapting it to new use would have been an opportunity to place it on the same page as Port Arthur in Australia, or Robben Island in South Africa whose communities fought to preserve their landmark jails as important memories of their past, and where these landmarks have subsequently become great tourist destinations.

If the jail complex were to have been preserved, with a little creative thinking and innovative planning, we could have found a narrative which would fit into our contemporary community and provide a first-hand experience of a unique piece of social, cultural and architectural history. Its demolition denies us this opportunity.

The silver lining has been the expressions of dismay and calls for the preservation of the jail seen especially in blogs and on-line commentaries from the general public, not just heritage advocates. At the very least proposals are for the memory of the site to be retained by keeping the main gate and sections of the wall flanking it and to incorporate this into the new development.

Badan Warisan Malaysia believes that there is a great need for open public discourse on the future of Pudu Jail and that it is time due consideration is exercised by the official custodians of heritage into preserving and restoring not just this site, but all of Malaysia's significant built heritage. Laws, guidelines and standards to position heritage conservation as a critical activity for maintaining our nation's identity is crucial and we can ill afford to keep loosing our fragile heritage.

Carcosa Seri Negara

Badan Warisan Malaysia has always advocated for the preservation and conservation of our nation's built heritage. We fully support sustainable conservation and adapting heritage buildings to new use is a way to ensure their future viability. It has been 20 years since Carcosa Seri Negara (built 1904) was turned into a boutique hotel from its use as the official Residence of the British High Commissioner, and prior to that, the British Resident to Malaya.

The declaration of Carcosa Seri Negara as a National Heritage site in the 2007 demonstrates the government's recognition of its historical importance in the political, social and economic landscape of the nation as well as its architectural and aesthetic values.

We do not have details of the proposal to redevelop of Carcosa Seri Negara, but suffice to say, as one of our nation's heritage assets, any redevelopment of this site - which includes refurbishment, repair, renovations, etc., - should be fully compliant with internationally accepted conservation guidelines and best practice standards. We hope there is a conservation management plan, in accordance with Section 46 of the National Heritage Act, which will ensure that any redevelopment of the buildings, lands and its environment will not only retain, but enhance, its heritage values.

We also hope that in keeping with principles of transparency and good governance, the custodians of our national heritage will engage widey with the general public before final decisions are made on the redevelopment.

Hotel Majestic

When a building is left unoccupied it rapidly deteriorates, especially in our climate.

The Majestic Hotel in Kuala Lumpur has been left vacant since 1998 when the National Art Gallery moved to its premises on Jalan Tun Razak. Gazetted in the early 1980s as a heritage building under the Antiquities Act 1976 (repealed in 2005), over the past ten years the property has suffered the indignity of being vandalised, its broken windows and a victim of plants growing out of its brickwork.

The building's owner has the responsibility to keep the building in a good state of repair and to take reasonable steps for properly preserving it (see Section 42 of the National Heritage Act 2005). If the building has been leased out, it could be supposed that this responsibility falls to the lessee. The local authorities have the power to enforce the law with regard to offences related to the destruction, damage, disfigurement, either in part or in whole, of all properties.

How much more then should that protection be extended to a building which has been declared a category 1 heritage building in the Draft Kuala Lumpur City Plan 2020.

Elizabeth Cardosa

Executive Director