An Innovative Operational Framework for an Independent Intangible Cultural Heritage Commission in Malaysia

The governance of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) in Malaysia remains structurally constrained by fragmented federal–state jurisdiction, legal pluralism, and the limited authority of existing heritage institutions under the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645). Although Malaysia possesses a rich and diverse cultural heritage, current governance mechanisms remain largely advisory in nature and lack the institutional autonomy and enforceable authority necessary to address complex disputes involving federal agencies, state religious authorities, indigenous customary systems, and local communities. This study proposes an innovative operational framework for establishing an Independent Intangible Cultural Heritage Commission (IICHC) in Malaysia, a legally empowered, participatory governance institution capable of addressing these longstanding structural deficiencies. Employing a hybrid qualitative methodology integrating doctrinal legal analysis, legal pluralism theory, comparative institutional evaluation, and case-based analysis, the study examines constitutional, statutory, and governance challenges within Malaysia’s existing heritage framework. Comparative insights are drawn from Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan to identify institutional practices relevant to plural legal environments and decentralised governance systems. The findings reveal that effective safeguarding of ICH requires more than administrative preservation measures; it necessitates an autonomous institutional mechanism capable of mediating competing normative systems, harmonising federal and state policies, and empowering heritage communities through participatory governance. The proposed Commission is therefore conceptualised as a statutory body or quasi-judicial tribunal anchored upon three interrelated mandates: dispute resolution and mediation, policy harmonisation and coordination, and community empowerment and participation. The framework contributes to contemporary scholarship on heritage governance, legal pluralism, and institutional reform by demonstrating how inclusive and legally coordinated governance mechanisms may strengthen cultural safeguarding within plural constitutional systems. Furthermore, the proposed model advances Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 concerning peace, justice, and strong institutions, while supporting SDG 8 through sustainable cultural tourism, creative industries, and community-based economic development.

Intangible cultural heritage governance, legal pluralism, institutional reform, participatory governance, sustainable heritage governance

1. Anaya, S. J. (2023). Indigenous Cultural Rights and State Governance in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of International Law, 13(1), 55–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aziz, A. A., & Abdullah, R. (2023). Cultural Governance and Federal–State Relations in Malaysia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 54(2), 211–230. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Blake, J. (2022). Further reflections on community involvement in the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Cultural Property, 29(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/S094073912200012X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bortolotto, C. (2023). Intangible Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Participation. Heritage & Society, 16(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Crooke, E. (2022). Communities, Heritage and Museums. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries. Governance, 17(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00256.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Harding, A. (2022). The Constitution of Malaysia: A Contextual Analysis (3rd ed.). Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hilley, J. (2001). Malaysia: Mahathirism, Hegemony and the New Opposition. Verso. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kurin, R. (2021). Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 21st Century: Governance, Participation and Sustainability. Museum International, 73(1–2), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2021.1883074 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Labadi, S. (2021). Heritage and the Sustainable Development Goals: Policy Guidance for Heritage Institutions. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27(9), 889–903. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Logan, W., Craith, M. N., & Kockel, U. (2022). A Companion to Heritage Studies (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Matt, A. (2013). The limits of institutional reform in development changing rules for realistic solutions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. McKerracher, K. (2022). Relational legal pluralism and Indigenous legal orders in Canada. Global Constitutionalism, 12(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000193 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Meskell, L. (2023). UNESCO and the Governance of Global Heritage. Current Anthropology, 64(2), 145–159. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Michaels, R. (2005). The Re-State-Ment of Non-State Law: The State, Choice of Law, and the Challenge From Global Legal Pluralism. 51, 1209. https://lsr.nellco.org/duke_fs/21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mustafa, N. A. (2025). Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 350. https://doi.org/10.51244/ijrsi.2025.120800032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. 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). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i11/15776 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2021). Governance, Politics and the State (2nd ed.). Red Globe Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Tobin, B. (2022). Indigenous Peoples, Customary Law and Legal Pluralism in Heritage Governance. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 54(3), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2022.2105147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. UNESCO. (2023). Overall Results Framework for the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Von Benda-Beckmann, F., & Turner, B. (2021). Legal Pluralism, Social Theory, and the State. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 53(2), 123–140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Yusoff, N. H. (2024). Safeguarding Malay Intangible Cultural Heritage in Contemporary Malaysia: Challenges and Institutional Reform. Wacana Seni Journal of Arts Discourse, 23(1), 77–96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]