（中國報）麻風病院東院持續拆除 44戶居民未獲安頓

麻風病院居民拉著的橫幅，由台灣樂生院製作；后者是一間因發展遭拆除的台灣麻風病院。

（雙溪毛糯21日訊）麻風病院東院被發展已逼在眉捷，超過50間空置小屋子被剷平，可惜44戶居民仍搬遷無期，與廢墟為鄰，對未來茫然無助！

當地居民促請發展商，馬上停止拆屋工程，直至搬遷事務敲定為止。

麻風病院參議會代主席李初成指出，本月10日參議會與發展商首次開會，后者口頭承諾，將賠償居民，並安頓居民至中院居住。

“當時發展商說需與瑪拉工藝大學談論賠償事項，可惜迄今仍沒有下聞。”

不過，李初成拒絕透露，居民所要求的賠償數額，避免節外生枝。

同時，李初成說，發展商原說居民需在12月搬遷至中院，可惜目前為止，發展商才在中院裝修著3間小屋子，進展緩慢。

“以這種速度看來，不知可時才能完成44間小屋子，居民怎樣搬遷呢？”

他指出，東院共有112間小屋子，除了44間由居民居住外，其余皆是空屋；超過半數已被拆除。

他說，拆屋工程持續進行，留在當地的居民，被逼面對積水、蚊蟲滋生等問題，長期下去，恐怕會爆發骨痛熱症。

李初成今日在新聞發佈會上，這么指出。

出席者包括搶救希望之谷支援小組負責人莊白綺、古跡研究學者林永隆及一群東院居民。

李初成也將提呈訴求信給有關政府單位，希望各造正視麻風病院居民面對的問題，人道立場處理此事。

另外，東院10間公共浴室、洗衣場、菜市場及監獄也將遭拆除。

要求政府正視心聲
居民提出4大訴求

超過50間小屋子已被拆除，形同廢墟。

麻風病院東院居民提出4大訴求，要求涉及政府單位正視他們的心聲！

這份訴求信將呈交給高等教育部、文化藝術與文物部、衛生部、雪州衛生局及發展商。

麻風病院中院新屋
廁所設屋外不方便

麻風病院中院的新屋子，被居民批評過于窄狹，特別是廁所設在屋外，令行動不便者面對如廁困難！

發展商在中院裝修或興建的44間新屋子，依據過去的設計形式，把廁所建在屋外，每6戶居民共用數間廁所。

居民指出，他們居住在東院時，自行修葺把廁所建在屋內，可是中院的新屋子，廁所一律在外面。

“部分麻風病患不良于行，晚上如廁更是加倍困難。”

同時，居民也批評，新屋子週遭也沒有足夠空地，讓他們栽花種木。

誤以為停止售花
花圃生意額下降

外人誤以為麻風病院已停止售花，導致花圃生意額下降！

麻風病院參議會代主席李初成指出，最近生意減少，因許多人斷章取義，誤以為報章指出麻風病院已遭拆除及停止售花。

他說，被拆除的東院，花圃不多，而且是以批發為主。

“花圃集中在中院，因此拆除東院，沒有對鮮花產量造成影響。”

他希望大家繼續來這裡買花，避免居民遭受雙重打擊。

李初成也計劃在12月舉行花展，鼓勵大家來買花，特別是迎接明年農曆新年的到來。

難適應新環境
★陳興

我們在東院居住數十年，如今年過半百，很難適應新環境。

新屋子太窄，廁所又在外面，如廁很不方便。

我希望居民獲得合理賠償，畢竟這一次搬遷，對我們的心理及經濟是重大打擊。

安排土地種花
★冼滔賢

我在東院擁有一個花圃，以售花維生，不過受發展牽連，必須搬遷，所幸獲得院長同情，安排中院一塊土地，讓我在那裡繼續種花。

我希望發展商趕快修建中院的小屋子，因為我隔壁的空置屋子已被剷除，積水及蚊蟲滋生，很不衛生。

冀獲政府關懷
★楊良金

我不幸患上麻風病后，搬來這裡居住，豈料老年卻面對搬遷。

我希望政府同情、關懷我們，別讓希望之谷變成死亡之谷。

我在東院居住及經營花圃，約一畝土地，我希望在搬遷至中院后，也能獲配土地，繼續種花。

冀廁所建屋內
★蔡銀

搬遷問題遲遲未談妥，令我覺得很沒有保障。

我希望搬遷后，能擁有土地來繼續種花，而且我希望廁所建在屋內，否則如廁很不方便。

來源：中國報

（中央社）青年樂生聯盟明赴馬國辦事處籲勿拆療養院

（中央社記者王鴻國台北縣二十七日電）青年樂生 聯盟在爭取保存樂生療養院時，曾獲國際力量聲援，在馬來西亞的毛糯療養院，與樂生院一樣同為集中收容漢生病（痲瘋病）患者的療養院，現在也面臨拆遷命運； 因此，青年樂生聯盟明天上午將率眾前往馬來西亞駐台辦事處聲援毛糯，籲馬國勿拆毛糯院。

青年樂生聯盟今晚表示，台灣的樂生療養院在政府長期互踢皮球推託責任下，保存方案既未與在地院民達成共識，應有的古蹟審議程序也遲遲沒有進展，眼看捷運局已將怪手駛進樂生院大門口，幾個相關的主管單位卻默不作聲，默許這些違法工程繼續進行。

在 馬來西亞，擁有七十七年歷史的雪蘭莪州雙溪毛糯療養院 (Sungai Buloh leprosy settlement)，與樂生院同為集中收容漢生病（痲瘋病）患者的社區式療養院（leprosy settlement），卻因瑪拉工藝大學欲興建高層建築的校舍工程而面臨被拆遷的命運，毛糯院最早興建的「東院」已遭到拆除，部分院民被迫遷離他們生活 的大半輩子的家園。

青年樂生聯盟指出，他們對馬來西亞當局拆除毛糯療養院並迫遷一事，表達嚴重的抗議與高度關切，毛糯院不僅僅是這些居民的家園，同時也在國際痲瘋病史上扮演重要地位。誠懇呼籲馬來西亞政府，重新檢討此次草率決定，完整保留毛糯院，讓居民安心續住並永久維護這寶貴文化資產。

來源：中央社

（當今大馬）捍卫麻风病院是人权也是文化 希望之谷可借鉴台湾乐生经验

王德齐 07年10月12日 下午3:55

古迹保存运动不仅只是在于捍卫古迹免遭拆除，而是如何将这个老旧的空间开放，让不同背景的社会人士都能参与其中，让古迹长久“存活”下去。 与双溪毛糯麻风病院同样面对迫迁命运的台湾乐生疗养院，在青年乐生联盟的带动下已变成一个人民文化空间。那里曾是外人不敢踏入，麻风病患者不能外出的隔离国度，目前却已变成演唱会或夏令营的举办地点，或摄影、写生、漫画或文字创作的灵感泉源。 积极参与捍卫乐生疗养院运动的台湾学者丘延亮，在分享他们的经验时就表示，青年乐生联盟虽然不是一个很紧密的组织，但是却成功把该疗养院变成一个开放的空间，让大家都能善用当地的资源举办活动，发挥本身的创意和潜力。 “你做什么东西，不需要开会，不需要通知我们，也不需要大家审查。你来就来吧！我想大概就是这样一个让大家都能参与的空间，你所做的每一样东西都是一个加分。” 创意青年打造台北新开放空间 具有“希望之谷”之称的双溪毛糯麻风病院拥有80年的历史，是全球首家以人性化角度治疗麻风病患的疗养院，将麻风病人安顿在一个与外界隔绝的社区。不过，麻风病院东院土地目前已归玛拉工艺大学拥有，并准备建立医学院，导致这片古迹面对摧毁的命运。 远 在台北县新庄市的乐生疗养院则是台湾第一家公立麻风病隔离医院，在1929年由日本殖民政府设立。由于捷运计划的机厂将设在乐生疗养院现址，因此平均年龄 74岁的患者在94年便遭迫迁。关心疗养院命运的青年学生随后在2004年成立青年乐生联盟，多次阻挡有关当局进行强拆工作。 因此，“抢救希望之谷”支援活动小组便在昨晚举行“乐生与希望”交流会，邀请丘延亮来马分享和分析保留乐生运动的过程，希望能将台湾的经验贯彻在捍卫双溪毛糯麻风病院的工作。 当晚交流会的主持人共吸引80名出席者的热烈响应，其中许多参与者是来自雪隆大专校园的学生。丘延亮也是台湾中央研究院民族学研究所副研究员和前香港浸会大学社会学副教授。 没政党动员也有6千人参与捍卫 丘延亮（右图）表示，虽然乐生疗养院和双溪毛糯麻风病院相比显得较小和较少病人，不过在高度发展的台北已经“是一个不可多得地方”。 “台北再也没有那么大棵的树，再也没有那么新鲜的空气，再也没有一个大家可以画画、写生的地方。” “我 们要保存乐生（疗养院），一方面是文化的，一方面是人权的，一方面是医疗的，另一方面是跟台湾今天这么唯利是图、这么一个还在发展迷思底下、在一个政党恶 斗为权力不为人民的情况低下，抗争的意义不但是要把这些空间保留下来，而且要把这个空间变成活的、人民的、创造的、自由的空间。” 他指出，由于台湾政治的恶性发展，使到这个社会变得非常闷，使到年轻人不愿意参与政党。因此，一个具创造性，并让他们找到发挥空间的捍卫乐生疗养院运动对年轻人来说非常意义，甚至有一次游行在没有政党动员的情况下获得6千余人的响应参与。

创意青年打造台北新开放空间 没政党动员也有6千人参与捍卫 12月办“我爱希望之谷”嘉年会 來源：當今大馬

（當今大馬）警察强押入院，临老遭迫迁 乐生院麻风病患者命运坎坷

王德齐 07年10月12日 傍晚6:09

五六十年前，台湾的麻风病患者被警察扣上手铐，送往乐生疗养院强制隔离；现在，他们虽然平均年龄已经74岁，却因为捷运计划而遭迫迁到他们形容为“回到笼子”的迴龙医院。 积极参与捍卫乐生疗养院运动的丘延亮昨晚在交流会中就指出，虽然台湾在数十年来面对天翻地覆的转变，不过乐生风波显示台湾在处理人权问题上，从未出现变化。 “缺了手、缺了脚、缺了鼻子不是丑恶，一个不会同理、不会尊重人的心才是真正的丑恶。” 乐生疗养院是台湾第一家公立麻风病隔离医院，在1929年由日本殖民政府设立。由于捷运计划的机厂将设在乐生疗养院现址，因此住在院内的麻风病患者自从94年便遭到迫迁。 关心疗养院命运的青年学生随后在2004年成立青年乐生联盟，而麻风病患者也组成自救会捍卫本身的权益。他们多次以身阻挡有关当局展开拆除工作，其中一次激烈的冲突就发生在今年9月12日。 由于双溪毛糯麻风病院所面对的遭遇和乐生疗养院雷同，“抢救希望之谷”支援活动小组便在昨晚举行“乐生与希望”交流会，邀请丘延亮来马分享和分析保留乐生运动的过程，希望能将台湾的经验贯彻在捍卫双溪毛糯麻风病院的工作。 这场在隆雪华堂举行的交流会更获得80名民众的热烈响应，并由“抢救希望之谷”支援活动小组成员庄白绮主持。 利用患者做实验致使多人自杀 台 湾的麻风病患者当初就不是在心甘情愿的情况下被送入乐生疗养院。目前担任台湾中央研究院民族学研究所副研究员的丘延亮指出，殖民政府在收容日当天突然强行 将患者带上收容列车，甚至将走过之处都一一加以消毒，导致当时的台湾社会对患者的歧视更深。病患也被迫和家人终身断绝往来。 有别于双溪毛糯对患者实施人性化的照顾方式，乐生疗养院内也曾发生许多惨绝人寰的事件。丘延亮指出，在早期，所有男性在结婚前都必须结扎，而怀孕的妇女也必须堕胎。此外，一些不肖的医药人员更利用患者进行药物实验，导致许多患者因为痛不欲生而选择自杀。 虽然如此，患者在居住了五六十年后早已“以院为家”，而依山而建的乐生疗养院的周遭环境也非常适合他们养病。住在疗养院内的周富子在创作的歌曲《每天早上蝉在叫》中就唱到，“树仔大业好遮荫，有路宽宽可以走，还有新鲜自然的空气，风吹带来又微微，这是对我们帮助的。”

利用患者做实验致使多人自杀 台湾政府仅保留小部分疗养院

來源：當今大馬

（獨立新聞在線）赞双溪毛糯病院环境优美 台湾学者学生冀完整保留

【本刊陈慧思撰述】“太漂亮了，比我们的乐生院还要漂亮！”台湾学者和学生赞颂我国双溪毛糯麻风病院的美，且发出了“完整保留毛糯院”的呼声。

积极参与台湾捍卫乐生疗养院保存运动的台湾学者丘延亮和一群台湾中原大学景观系的学生皆认为，双溪毛糯麻风病院是一个独特、舒服、优美的空间，应完整保留。

参观过双溪毛糯麻风病院的中原大学学生林牧村（左图）说：“真的很漂亮，真的很漂亮！”他与《独立新闻在线》分享他的感想时说：“看了之后很喜欢，觉得很棒、很美，想在那儿作素描，也想跟他们（院民）聊天。”

他还说：“那儿的人都很开朗、不封闭自己，有趣的是那儿的族群也很融合，感觉好棒。”林牧村的两名同学林俊明和施欣慧也说：“那儿空气很好，感觉是一个开放的空间，不像是一个疗养院，是舒服的社区，有村庄的感觉，人民也很和善。”

林牧村、林俊明、施欣慧等一行约十名来自台湾中原大学的学生目前在我国进行景观考察，其中一个考察景点是双溪毛糯麻风病院。参观了毛糯院之后，同学们皆赞叹毛糯院自然环境的优美，也都表达了完整保留毛糯院的想望。

可创造人文共享空间

丘延亮昨晚在隆雪华堂与出席者分享保留乐生院运动经验时表示，参与保留乐生院运动者非但为乐生疗养院的保留而斗争，也赋予该地生命力和创造力，令它成为一个活的古迹。

他指出，捍卫乐生者成立的乐生青年联盟每周皆在乐生办音乐会、文学营、舞蹈治疗、讲座会等活动，把台北郊外的乐生疗养院转换成一个人民发声的平台和各种形式创造的空间和媒介。

乐 生疗养院成立于日治时代的1929年（昭和四年），位于台北及新竹交界的迴龙地区，是台湾第一所麻风病院。根据“维基百科”的资料，1994年台湾卫生处 把乐生卖给台湾市政府捷运工程局，2003年捷运第一波拆除工程施工，次年台湾青年成立了“台湾乐生联盟”，2005年台湾社会又成立了“台湾保留自救 会”，结合乐生院民的力量展开了热烈的捍卫乐生运动。

据丘延亮（左图）透露，目前工程局已经拆除了七成院区，捍卫者要政府保留剩下的三成院区中的九成，可是政府只有意保留其中六成，民间和政府尚在斡旋中。

丘 延亮指出，乐生青年联盟“不是一个紧密的组织”，但其好处也在于此；正由于组织性不强，每个关心者都可以自由参与其中，施展所长。他说：“大家都觉得这是 一个开放性的空间，不需要开会、审查，可以自己想象、投身的地方，没有人要求你做什么，但是你做的每一样东西都是一个加分。”

他认为，我国的保留毛糯院运动也可以朝此方向努力，在捍卫古迹之余，在毛糯院创造一个人文共享空间。

丘延亮昨晚是在“抢救希望之谷支援小组”主办的“乐生与希望”交流会上发表上述言论。

拥有芝加哥大学人类学系博士学位的丘延亮是台湾中央研究院民族学研究所副研究员兼前香港浸会大学社会学系副教授，多年来积极参与台湾社会运动。交流会的主持人是“抢救希望之谷支援小组”成员庄白绮。

庄 白绮透露，目前“抢救希望之谷支援小组”正联合各个单位的力量，积极推行各类活动，努力把毛糯院营造成一个开放空间。继导览活动和中秋园游会之后，10月 28日隆雪华青也将在毛糯院举办第三届“健步重阳”家庭日，“支援小组”也计划在12月举办“我爱希望之谷嘉年华会”，以一系列的活动吸引公众参观和认识 毛糯院。

台湾病友同样意愿不一

副文化、艺术及文物部部长黄锦鸿日前向《独立新闻在线》证实，卫生部、教育部及文化、艺术与文物部三造已议决，仅保留双溪毛糯麻风病院部份“具有文物价值”的建筑物，不完整保留麻风病院。【点击：麻风病院不会完整保留 仅保留有文化价值建筑】

目前承建马拉工艺大学的发展商Tunas Selatan Consortium有限公司已连续两周在麻风病院东院的监狱和高地住宅区一带如火如荼地进行拆除工程。

在交流环节，新纪元学院媒体研究系讲师傅向红（右图）表达了她的担忧，即我国政府蛮横、不怕丢脸，可是另一方面民间社会也怕事，忌讳站到街头与政府对抗，加上毛糯院内部问题复杂、院民没有一致及强烈的保留意愿，保留毛糯院运动存在重重障碍。

丘延亮回应时指出，台湾乐生病友内部也有许多问题，保留意愿也非全然一致的，仍有病友只求赔偿，没有强烈的保留意愿。目前乐生院拆剩30%，可是每个有心人都在运动中得到启发和力量，乐生院也成了运动人士互相激荡和鼓励的地方，这也算是一种获得。

张集强也认同“开放性空间”的概念，他说：“古迹是一棵树，不同的人看到这棵树会想到不同的事情，有的人想到树干可以用来做家具，有的想在树下看书。”

他说：“古迹能给人能量，就算到最后古迹保存没希望了，它仍会保存在我们心里。”

來源：獨立新聞在線

Support from Taiwan

各位朋友：

與樂生院同為長年遭到隔離的漢生病友居住的馬來西亞毛糯院正面臨拆遷的危機，我們邀請您連署聲援毛糯院並於本週五一同至馬來西亞駐台單位遞交抗議信。

時間:9/28上午十點
地點:馬來西亞辦事處(台北市敦化北路102號)

聯絡人:青年樂生聯盟 何欣潔 0911371768

(News)NST-Spotlight: Home sweet... gone?

2007/09/08

Ali Long, 63, gazing forlornly at the eastern part of his 'home' which has been demolished. He hopes the settlement will be spared "for memory's sake".

The 77-year-old Sungai Buloh leper settlement was once hailed as the most scenic and impressive leprosarium in the world. Now bulldozers are crashing through this unique garden city in the name of development. TAN CHOE CHOE checks out the place.

Chui Ying, 70 (left), and her husband Kong Cheen, 75, are doubtful if their home can be saved from development.

This 1969 picture shows a patient-turned-farmer working on a plot of land that he'd been allotted.

THE scene is right out of a watercolour painting. The sky is overcast; the landscape dotted by farmers growing flowers, grass and potted plants; coconut trees swaying in the breeze with ripe fruits beckon at every corner.

But on closer look, one can see scores of abandoned cottages, some roofless, some partially collapsed, and some with trees growing right through them.

Strangely, the farmers, although friendly, are not leprosy patients but mostly Indonesian workers.

This is the much talked about Sungai Buloh leper settlement, once noted as the most beautiful and modern leprosarium in the world because of the surrounding lush forests.
It was built by the British colonial administration in 1929 as a self-contained settlement for leprosy patients uprooted from society and condemned to live in isolation under the Leper Enactment.

Badan Warisan executive director Elizabeth Cardosa wrote in her New Sunday Times column in July that the settlement "represents a part of our medical and social heritage, which sadly most of us know nothing about".

Author Joyce Wong Chau Yin, whose book ‘Valley of Hope’ details the history of the settlement and its inmates, described it as "a very important part of the history of leprosy in this country as well as the world".

The leprosarium originally covered an area of 230ha, but was reduced to 120ha to make way for the new Sungai Buloh Hospital, a nursing college and a new highway.

The area will be further reduced because 16ha on the eastern side of the settlement has been alienated by the Health Ministry for Universiti Teknologi Mara to build its medical faculty.

The construction of the faculty is estimated to displace between 40 to 50 residents of the settlement, most of whom are elderly former leper patients.

The authorities are still mulling over whether to gazette the area as a heritage site, giving hope to the inmates that their home won’t be taken away from them.

But in a move that was described as a "blow to heritage" last Sunday, UiTM had gone ahead and torn down some walls and removed tiles from the roof of the old prison — making some of the inmates nervous about their future.

"It’s the only home we know and we’re all mostly elderly people now. Why can’t they let us live out our lives in some semblance of dignity and peace?" asks former patient Kong Cheen, 75.

Kong Cheen has lived in the settlement since he was 25 years old. He met his wife Chui Ying, another leprosy patient, when she was admitted in 1961.

"They said we will be given houses on the western side, but what about our farming plots here?

"We will lose our main source of income if we move and they destroy our farm," says Chui Ying.

The couple admits that they are too old to work their farm plots themselves. Instead, they lease it to an outsider who employs foreign workers to work the plots for them.

"We get a few hundred ringgit in return to supplement the monthly allowance of RM136.80 from the government. It’s not much but it’s a lot to retirees like us," says Kong Cheen.

Another villager, Sin Kok Han, 72, says he has lived in the settlement for over 55 years.

"I don’t want to leave. This place bears testimony to the story of my life and my wife’s. How would you feel if I ask you to leave your place of birth? That is how we will feel if they evict us," says Sin.

Echoing his sentiments is Ali Long, 63, a leper patient who has lost both his hands and legs.

"It will be a loss (sayang) if they give this place up to development. This place has witnessed much... so many stories... so many memories," says Ali.

Those still living in the settlement are mostly elderly people in their 60s and 70s or very young children.

Many youths have since moved out and assimilated with society at large in the ‘outside world’.

One youth who remained after his father — a former leper patient who has passed on — is Lourdes Surenderen, 29, and he welcomes development because he feels that the settlement is being exploited by outsiders.

He says many immigrants have settled in the area, occupying some of the abandoned cottages, "getting free electricity, water, and shelter".

"They are causing us social problems. There have been increasing cases of theft and vandalism since they came here," he claims.

Malaysian Leprosy Relief Association (Malra) secretary-general Datuk E.J. Lawrence believes it’s time the settlement was developed, but for different reasons.

Lawrence, who helped found Malra in 1959, says the association was set up to help former leprosy patients rehabilitate and live independently.

"The interest of the outside world in this settlement shows Malra has succeeded in eroding the stigmatism that has long been associated with people afflicted with leprosy.

"It shows that people are no longer afraid to come here and mingle with the patients and this should be viewed positively," he says.

Leprosy was once considered an infectious disease that could not be cured — "but it’s no longer true", says Lawrence.

By 1969, powerful drugs had been discovered that could halt, in a matter of days, early cases of the debilitating disease and prevent the hideous deformities that are often its legacy.

Leprosarium facts

• Officially opened in 1930, it was hailed as the most modern and impressive leprosarium in the British Commonwealth because of its scenic setting and modern buildings and facilities.

• It was second largest only to the Culion Island Settlement in the Philippines that was established in 1910, with a population of about 6,000.

• Divided by a hill in the centre, the west section is for the sick and disabled who required care; the east is a village for cured patients to live independently, each working their allotted plot of land to grow fruits, vegetables and raise livestock.

• Every kind of imaginable facility was provided — a school, churches, mosques, Indian and Chinese temples, grocery shops, workshops, etc.

• The settlement was managed by the lepers themselves, working as clerks, police, hardeners, watchmen, dispensers, dressers and nurses.

• Between the 1930s and 1980s, it was a major centre of treatment and research in the world, especially for trials of alternative drugs

• At the height of the illness in the 1950s, it housed some 3,000 patients.

• About 300 patients still live there today, although most have been cured and are free to leave.

---

Gazetting a piece of history

IN the limelight after it was abruptly ordered to halt demolition works at the leprosarium last Sunday, UiTM is asking for answers from the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry on why no efforts had been made to gazette the settlement even though it has existed since the 1900s.

The question arises: How exactly do the authorities go about gazetting a heritage site?

Under the National Heritage Act 2005, the Heritage Commissioner is responsible for the National Heritage Register and the National Heritage Department (Jabatan Warisan Negara) is the administrating department for this.

The commissioner, Datuk Prof Zuraina Majid, has the power to identify areas that are to be gazetted, including the buffer zone around the area, if necessary.

Anyone who thinks a site is of heritage value can nominate the site to the commissioner, by sending an application letter with information on the historical background of the site, its built and usage.

The application should also include photographs of the building, building plans and site plan with the location of the buildings clearly indicated.

"Once we have identified the area, we will visit the site and examine its heritage value and authenticity of history," says Jabatan Warisan Negara head of enforcement Khalid Syed Ali.

This is done after a notice is given to the owner of the site, seven days in advance, of the visit.

Once the significance of a site is verified and the commissioner thinks it suitable to be gazetted, the commissioner will send a notice of her intention to the owner of the site — 60 days before making the designation.

"A notice of intention will also be forwarded to the Land Office," says Khalid.

If the commissioner thinks it necessary for the purpose of conservation and preservation, she will issue an interim protection order to the owner, with the concurrence of the state authority.

Then she will publish the intention to gazette in local newspapers after getting consent from the state .

"We are open to objections from the public for 30 days after the gazette is published, as stipulated under Section 28 of the Act," says Khalid.

If there’s no objection, the commissioner will issue gazette notice to the owner and the local town and city planner, and publish the designation in the Gazette and local newspapers.

If there are objections, the commissioner will set a date, time and venue to listen to the objection and then decide whether to go ahead with the designation or not.

Badan Warisan executive director Elizabeth Cardosa says a site can be gazetted as Grade 1, 2 or 3, which corresponds to the interest, uniqueness, level of authenticity and architectural significance of the site.

Grade 1 is the highest and is synonymous to the term National Heritage, while 3 is the lowest.

"Grade 1 and 2 sites are likely to qualify for conservation grants, but not Grade 3. There are guidelines on what owners or custodians can and cannot do with their sites once gazetted," she adds.

For example, for Grade 1 sites, the external face and internal layouts of the buildings must be retained along with all architectural elements and materials, "but appropriate adaptive re-use is permitted".

In the case of the leper settlement, researcher Lim Yong Long had submitted a nomination form to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage on July 10 for it to be gazetted as a National Heritage site.

And Badan Warisan’s views on the settlement are clear in a Press statement issued on Tuesday where its president, Tan Sri Ahmad Sarji Abdul Hamid, said: "Badan Warisan has written to, and spoken with, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage, on the historical importance of the Sungai Buloh Leprosy Settlement at national as well as international levels.

"… The history of leprosy is an extremely valuable legacy to humanity … the role and significance (of the settlement) is found in all references to the history of leprosy of the world …"

"It was so successful that it became a model on which other leprosy centres around the world were based."

Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia heritage and conservation committee chairman Mohd Zulhemlee An agrees with Badan Warisan.

"We should conserve the leprosy centre, not because it’s a heritage building but because it’s an independent and sustainable community that is of historical value to us ... since the 1920s.

"The buildings may just be simple cottages to many people, but they were built with colonial features and adapted to tropical climes. They are of architectural significance," he says.

Source: NSTonline