Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward

This paper examines the complex legal and policy landscape governing intangible cultural heritage (ICH) in Malaysia, focusing on the inherent conflicts arising from its unique federal-state constitutional structure. It argues that the current framework, primarily governed by the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), is insufficient to address jurisdictional disputes, particularly when state religious authorities or local governments exercise power over cultural practices. Through a comparative analysis of Indonesia, Japan, and the Philippines, this study identifies alternative models for effective ICH safeguarding. The paper proposes a series of legal and policy reforms, including statutory amendments to Act 645, a rights-based approach to indigenous cultural rights, and institutional restructuring to create a more coherent and pragmatic framework. The analysis highlights that a way forward for Malaysia requires not just legal amendments, but a fundamental shift towards a decentralized, participatory, and rights-based approach to heritage governance that is sensitive to constitutional realities and political constraints.

Cultural Heritage, Law

1. Abas, A., & Hassan, H. (2021). The integration of environmental and cultural protection: Rethinking ecosystem-based approaches to indigenous heritage. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Law, 26(1), 77–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abdullah, N. H. (2020). The role of Islamic law in the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law, 8(2), 35–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ahmad, A. G. (2006). Cultural heritage management in Malaysia. Museum International, 58(1–2), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.2006.00556.x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. An-Na’im, A. A. (2002). Islam and the secular state: Negotiating the future of Shari’a. Harvard University Press.Blake, J. (2017). International Cultural Heritage Law. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department. (various years). Malaysia Five-Year Plans. Government of Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Faruqi, S. S. (2014). Document of Destiny: The Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia. Star Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Government of Indonesia. (2017). Law No. 5 of 2017 on the Advancement of Culture. Ministry of Education and Culture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Government of Japan. (1950). Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. Agency for Cultural Affairs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Harding, A. (2012). The Constitution of Malaysia: A Contextual Analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Harding, A. (2018). The Constitution of Malaysia: A contextual analysis (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hasan, N. (2019). Maqasid al-Shariah and Cultural Heritage in Malaysia: Prospects for Islamic Legal Integration. Journal of Islamic Law and Society, 26(2), 145–163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ibrahim, R. (2017). Contesting Mysticism in Malaysia: Syariah and Cultural Politics. Asian Anthropology, 16(1), 54–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. ICOMOS. (2011). Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. International Council on Monuments and Sites. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Idris, J. (2019). Cultural heritage law in Malaysia: The challenges of federalism. IIUM Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. International Labour Organization. (1989). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169). https://www.ilo.org. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ismail, M., & Yaakop, N. I. (2019). The Role of Local Government in Cultural Heritage Governance in Malaysia. Planning Malaysia, 17(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jabatan Warisan Negara. (2019). National Heritage Policy Framework. Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kamali, M. H. (2008). Maqasid al-Shariah made simple. International Institute of Islamic Thought. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kamali, M. H. (2019). Shari'ah law: An introduction. Oneworld Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Khoo, S. N. (2010). Heritage Conservation and Urban Development in George Town. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 83(1), 61–78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kurin, R. (2004). Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention: A critical appraisal. Museum International, 56(1–2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00459.x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Logan, W. (2007). Closing Pandora’s Box: Human Rights Conundrums in Cultural Heritage Protection. In H. Silverman & D. F. Ruggles (Eds.), Cultural Heritage and Human Rights (pp. 33–52). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Logan, W. (2012). Cultural diversity, cultural heritage and human rights: Towards heritage management as human rights-based cultural practice. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(3), 231–244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Logan, W., & Reeves, K. (2009). Places of Pain and Shame: Dealing with Difficult Heritage. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Logan, W., & Wijesuriya, G. (Eds.). (2015). Cultural heritage management and law: Protecting intangible assets in the modern world. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Maznah, M. (2008). Islamic State or Secular State: A Political Analysis of the Mak Yong Ban in Kelantan. Kajian Malaysia, 26(1-2), 75–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture Malaysia. (2019). National Heritage Register Report. Department of National Heritage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mustafa, N. A. (2021). Legal Pluralism and the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 8(2), 233–251. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mustafa, N. A. (2021). Legal pluralism in Malaysia’s intangible heritage governance: Between Islam, adat, and statutory law. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Plural Legal Systems in Southeast Asia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mustafa, N. A. (2022). Customary law and the Malaysian Federal Constitution: Bridging the gap in intangible heritage governance. Paper presented at the International Conference on Legal Pluralism, Kuala Lumpur. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mustafa, N. A. (2022). Legal framework for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in Malaysia: With special reference to makyung and wayang kulit [Doctoral thesis, Universiti Teknologi MARA]. UiTM Institutional Repository. https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/72798/. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mustafa, N. A. (2022). Reframing Cultural Rights in Malaysia: Intangible Heritage and the Law. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28(3), 319–334. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mustafa, N. A. (2023). Intangible Heritage and Legal Fragmentation in Malaysia: Towards an Integrated Safeguarding Framework. In Conference Proceedings of ICH Law Symposium 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Mustafa, N. A. (2023). Intangible heritage governance and federalism in Malaysia: The case for legal reform. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 10(1), 77–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mustafa, N. A. (2024). Preservation of intangible cultural heritage: A legal comparison between Malaysian Act 645 and Japan 1950 cultural property law. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(9), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.809014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mustafa, N. A., & Abdullah, N. C. (2021). Peoples’ participation in the preservation of intangible cultural heritage in Malaysia: The legal perspective. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(11), 1923–1932. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/V11I11/14628. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mustafa, N. A., & Abdullah, N. C. (2022). Preservation of intangible cultural heritage under the National Heritage Act 2005 [Act 645] vs UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(11), 3299–3316. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i11/15776. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Mustafa, N. A., & Chua Abdullah, N. (2013). Preservation of cultural heritage in Malaysia: An insight of the National Heritage Act 2005. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tourism Development: Building the Future of Tourism (pp. 407–415). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Nasir, B. M. (2011). Legal pluralism and the protection of cultural heritage in Malaysia. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law, 38(1), 89–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA). (2015). Implementation report on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and cultural programs. Government of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Nicholas, C. (2010). The Orang Asli and the UNDRIP: From Rhetoric to Recognition. SUHAKAM. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Nicholas, C. (2020). The recognition and protection of Orang Asli customary land rights in Peninsular Malaysia: Legal and policy challenges. Suhakam Reports. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Republic of the Philippines. (1997). Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8371). Congress of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sagong bin Tasi & Ors v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors [2002] 2 MLJ 591 (MY). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Shadid, W. (2021). Cultural traditions and the maqasid al-shariah: A framework for harmonising Islamic law and heritage preservation. Journal of Islamic Cultural Studies, 9(2), 44–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Sufian, A. (2012). Compulsory Land Acquisition and Indigenous Rights in Malaysia: The Legal and Policy Framework. Malayan Law Journal, 3, cxxv–clv. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Superintendent of Lands and Surveys Miri Division v Madeli bin Salleh (suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Salleh bin Kilong, deceased) [2007] 6 CLJ 509 (MY). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Tan, S. B. (2013). Cultural Rights, Urban Change and Traditional Arts in Malaysia. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(5), 463–477. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Tan, Y., & Logan, W. (2016). Intangible Cultural Heritage in Urban Development: A Case Study of George Town. Cities, 53, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. UNESCO. (2009). Periodic report on the implementation of the 2003 Convention in Malaysia. https://ich.unesco.org. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. UNESCO. (2011). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: Operational Guidelines. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. UNESCO. (2021). Periodic reports on the implementation of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/state/periodic-report. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Yusoff, N. (2020). Challenges in Integrating Cultural Heritage into Town Planning Practice in Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 28(S2), 193–205. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.
• Optimizing Transfer Pricing in India: Leveraging AI, Blockchain, and Best Practices for Efficient Dispute Resolution and Compliance Reduction