1

CHARLES CROMPTON READEAND THE INTRODUCTION OF TOWN PLANNING SERVICE IN

BRITISH MALAYA(1921-1929)

ORIGINATING PLANNING FOCUS AND HOSTILITIES WITHIN A SLUMPECONOMY

Kamalruddin ShamsudinFederal Department of Town and Country Planning, Malaysia

kamalruddin@townplan.gov.my

Abstract:

Town planning service in Malaysia started in earnest in 1921. The contribution of Charles Reade, thetown planner entrusted to remedy the haphazard development of Kuala Lumpur is re-examined.Powerful business and property lobbying environment of the Federal Council have reduced itsinfluence and effectiveness; centralised town planning was lost towards the end of the 1920s. Todaytown planning historians have rescued Reade from obscurity and acknowledged his contributionsduring the nascent development of town planning as a profession worldwide and its diffusionthroughout the British Colonies.

Keywords:

Replanning and redistribution, garden city ideology.

Introduction

A number of local planning academicians and an increasing number of internationalhistorians have recently rescued Reade from obscurity and acknowledged hiscontribution towards the development of the town planning service in South Australia,Malaya, and Northern Rhodesia.1 Reade in particular was recognized as one of the

1 Dr. Goh Ban Lee, a local urban planning academician, critique and historian, has painted a balancedview of Reade, in his book, “Urban Planning In Malaysia : History, Assumptions and Issues” (1990).This research into Reade is partly motivated by Goh Ban Lee’s insistence that more research onReade’s contributions be made to obtain a clearer picture of the person and events surrounding theearly development of the planning service in Malaya. International historians, for example Garnaut(2002), Bristow (1996), Hutchings (1986) and Home (2000) have generally rescued Reade fromobscurity and recognized his role in the nascent development of town planning worldwide in the latenineteen century.

8th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THEASIAN PLANNING SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION11-14TH SEPTEMBER 2005

2

first generation of self-styled town planner working in the British colonies promotingthe cause of town planning within a generally hostile environment to town planning(Home, 2000): such hostilities are largely a conflict between public interest ideology;unfetish property development ; and a failure to appreciate political sensitivity withinan indirect British rule in Malaya.

Two major areas of historical interests framed this article. Firstly, his planningideologies and methods applied (re-planning and redistribution of lots)2 and secondly,to a lesser extent, the garden city design principles which he steadfastly heldthroughout his whole career till his untimely death in Johannesburg, South Africa in1933.

Both ideologies were ‘alien’ to landowners and their agents in Malaya. Such methodsand ideologies provide a fascinating analysis of conflicting interests within a Britishrule favoring appeasing property interest and maintaining the status quo over thesocial concerns of eradicating and prevention of slum and haphazard development inthe major towns of British Malaya (the task Reade was appointed to handle).

Charles Reade and the Garden City Movement

Charles Reade was born in Invergargill, New Zealand in 1880. Although he grew upto be a journalist, he soon became interested in urban development issues: writingabout slums conditions, urban deprivations and the need for systematic planning inthe industrialization period. This soon led him to learning the art and science of townplanning at the Garden City and Town Planning Association in England. By 1909,he published a book (Revelation of Britain: A Book for Colonials) on the ills ofindustrialisation on human settlement and examples of good municipal planning tocure urban slums.

Charles Reade in Australia

By the time he left London for Australia in 1914, he was already considered the mostsuitable emissary to deliver the garden city concept, as an ideology to solve urban illsin urban areas. Together with W.R. Davidge (architect, surveyor and planner), hegave numerous lectures on the Garden City Concept in many Australian towns andwas subsequently invited to become a town planning advisor to the South Australiangovernment in 1916.

In South Australia, he introduced a town planning legislature, established the SouthAustralian Town Planning Department (today called Planning South Australia) and anumber of planning schemes. Of the planning schemes in Adelaide, Mitcham GardenSuburb, is today a heritage garden suburb, renamed Colonel Lights Gardens. Readeapplied the garden city concept in many of his layout and even suggested a second

Photo of Charles Reade from Dr. Christine Garnaut, South Australia.2 Surprisingly not much has been discussed about Reade’s replanning and redistribution of lots by localand international historians. Those that have been written were largely from a legislative perspective(see for example by Lee Lik Meng et al., 1990). Reade’s yearly report from 1921-1929 and variousfiles kept at the National Archives, Kuala Lumpur and Public Records at Kew Garden, providesvaluable resource into understanding the working of this planning approach.

3

park belt system to Adelaide, further enhancing the existing park belt laid out byColonel William Lights (son to Colonel Francis Light of Penang)3.

The introduction of a planning legislature for South Australia was however not plainsailing, it was only on his second attempt that the planning legislature he proposedwas accepted but with much deletion to important planning ideas; a major oneinvolved having an authority to coordinate and implement planning schemes (alongthe American Planning Commission). South Australian planning historians today aregenerally in agreement that Reade’s ideas were far ahead of its times (Hutchings,1986) . Due to a loss of political will (Garnaut, 2002), a strong property lobbyistagainst his planning ideals, and a small pay (£700), Reade decided it was time toleave for greener pastures.

Establishment of the Town Planning Department in Malaya

Reade established a small town planning department in Kuala Lumpur on 18th January1921. He did an immediate survey of the conditions of towns in the country andreported this to the government. His report on the need for a permanent town planningmachinery for Malaya, entitled “Town Planning And Development In The FederatedMalay States (1922)” has been considered an important piece of historical document,promoting the need for a town planning machinery for the country (Goh Ban Lee,1990). In it, he outlined important aspects of town planning requirements and the needfor a legislature to manage the growth of towns in a orderly manner, emphasizing onprevention rather than cure, the difference between planning and sub-division,economies under Town Planning etc.

3 See the Catalogue, Second Town Planning and Housing Exhibition In Ipoh, 1927 (kept at the FederalTown and Country Planning library, Kuala Lumpur).

4

Figure 1:Town Planning Schemes in Kuala Lumpur(Notes on population and planning schemes 1-28 are those of the author sourced from various Yearly

Report of the Town Planning Department, National Archive, Malaysia)

He helped establish an Advisory Town Planning Committee for Selangor in 1921 withexecutive roles for their implementation. The British Resident for Selangor was itsChairman with members from main technical departments. Much was accomplishedthrough this committee. The application of re-planning and redistribution of awkwardlots along the German land pooling method (Lex Adickes, 1902) was used. Thismethod was not a common instrument/practice in Britain. However, re-planning andredistribution were already applied in India and a number of British Dominions(example Bombay Act, 1911), and a common practice in Germany and Netherlandswhere planning was highly plan-based in contrast to a policy-based planning approachin Britain…a fact not commonly known or differentiated. Thus Reade combined‘town planning scheme approach’ and the ‘re-planning and redistribution methods’ inthe Town Planning Legislature of 1923 in the Federated Malay States (F.M.S).

Although Reade mentioned the Garden City principle would be applied to Malaya,the reality was that private land owners were not prepared to subscribe to suchprinciple; and he only saw a closer semblance of the Garden City principle in thelayout of government quarters and a limited number of applications for existingtowns. An exception was the new town at Kuala Kubu Baru (KKB perhaps is his onlylasting legacy still standing today, a fact not commonly known to many). Somedescription on KKB will be given later in this paper. Land owners and propertydevelopers generally placed little appreciation for the development of pleasingtownscape with beauty and safety, favoring hefty profit in the ‘young’ Malayantownscape.

5

Town Planning Enactment, 19234

Thus the legislature which he introduced and enacted in 1923 was largely aimed atprevention, with supporting measures for curing current urban ills (slum and poorsubdivisions). The curative measures, in the form of compensation, betterment,injurious affection, sales, exchange, surrender, leasing of land etc., was largely led-down due to poor financial support. Indeed one of the reason why the Bill was easilypassed despite a number of oppositions from unofficials, was due to this assurancethat the legislature was not going to burden the government and that it would bereviewed after a year practical experience. This one year practical experience wassoon quickly taken-up by his opponents to the Enactment.

Reade’s earlier argument that not much financial expenditure was required for thispreliminary legislature (through re-planning and redistribution by exchanges andnegotiation) soon prove to be unworkable in number of cases, as suitable governmentland dwindles and such exchanges were difficult to actualise given the lack of ‘publicinterest’ ideology of land owners.

Although the government appeared concerned with both curing and prevention ofurban ills in the F.M.S. towns, it lacked commitment to invest adequate financialoutlay for such planning schemes. The lack of funds for constructing new roads in theplanning schemes was a recurrent complaint from landowners. The Times of Malayaand the Malay Mail on numerous occasions highlighted this weakness. Thus, curingwithout financial outlay poses a greater obstacle to solving the issue, understandablygiven the slump and poor economic situation world wide. Reade’s initial suggestionthat part of the solution could be had through exchanges of state land with those ofprivate owners was a novel ideas, through re-planning and redistribution, an idea helearned from Germany (Lex Adickes, 1902)…but he soon encountered oppositionsfrom landowners largely lacking in public interest or civic concerns.

Re-planning and redistribution, was an idea far in advance of its time, and in Malayait proved difficult to implement given the lack of strong government commitment,trained professionals in land re-plotting, lack of strong co-operations from landadministrators, and a lack of public interest ideology among land owners. But hepersisted with both ideas; prevention in the form of a General Town Plan, and curethrough re-planning and redistribution of lots. Although he worked hard in securingsuccesses in both areas between 1921 and 1924, it was not enough to convince itslongevity. The Federal Council was largely influenced by property and commercialdevelopment lobbyists and it lacked any sustained political will in such re-planningmethod despite acknowledging the need to remedy previous haphazard development.Further the uneasy relationship between the High Commissioner (Sir LawrenceGuillemard) and the Chief Secretary (Sir George Maxwell) had not benefited the townplanning cause ; the former staunchly for decentralisation policy, and the latter forretaining some form of centralisation and more sympathetic to town planning cause,who supported Reade’s early establishment of Advisory Town Planning Committee(TPC) of 1921.

4 For a good discussion of the planning legislature see especially Lee Lik Meng, Abdul MutalipAbdullah and Alip Rahim, Town Planning In Malaysia – History and Legislature (USM, 1990), andM.R. Bristow, Colonial Planning In Prewar Malaysia (1996).

6

Such TPC was also incorporated into the 1923 enactment. However, its role andchairmanship of the TPC was not supported by Sanitary Board officers and theirlobbyists because the TPC was not under the Sanitary Board purview. This setupalthough meant to promote greater coordination and control from Kuala Lumpur, wasseen to be taking away the powers of the Sanitary Board, although the chairman of theBoard, was latterly made chairman to the TPC. Indeed departmental jealousies havemade difficult the implementation of many of the planning schemes (for examplerecalcitrant town Planning administrators seconded from the Land Office). Further,the implementation of the British Government’s decentralization policy under SirLawrence Guillemard was quick to remove such a setup, the TPC was seen not in linewith such a policy.

At a glance, one could surmise that the fate of TPC was dependent on the outcome ofthe centralise/decentralise debate. The then Chief Secretary’s (Sir George Maxwell)reluctance to go for the full extent of decentralization supported it, but upon hisretirement in 1926, the decentralisation policy had inevitably, largely disadvantagedthe position of a centralized town planning, in particular where coordination andconsistency in Town Planning policies was concerned5.

In addition, the Town Planning Enactment of 1923 needed another year to be madeoperational (through Town Planning Rules). Suffice to say, opposition to hisenactment was quick to review the legislature, hardly a year the Rules was in place,and soon it was reviewed by a Select Committee, resided by unofficial and officialmembers largely in opposition to the 1923 enactment. Reade during the reviewprocess was away on long leave to China, Japan, America and to Britain, examininglatest development in Town Planning legislature to strengthen the one in Malaya.

Reade although had a number of success at re-planning and redistribution in theF.M.S. was not able to convince the Federal Council that the 1923 enactment becontinued, with relevant changes, particularly, requiring financial outlay in advanceof town planning schemes, and that outlying areas outside of the Sanitory Board beplanned along a regional planning format. Both ideas were not taken up. Sir LawranceGuillemard, the High Commissioner, not convinced of Reade’s contribution was alsoadvised to reduce the role played by Reade. However, Reade’s idea of maintainingplanning service to the Sanitary Board through a Town Planning Superintendent wasadopted and incorporated into the 1927 Town Planning Enactment). The latter idea,regional planning, was only taken up after Malaya got its independence, andincorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act, 1976, and strengthened furtherin 2001.

The Replanning and Redistribution method6

This method was based on the highly successful German land pooling method (LexAdickes, after the mayor of Frankfurt, Franz Adickes, 1902)7. Reade earlier in 1909

5 Today Town Planning is on the Concurrent List of the Federal Constitution, with ownership of bothFederal and the State Government on town planning matters. And town planning operation, throughdevelopment control, continued to be resided within/owned by the local authorities.

6 According to Home (1997), re-planning and redistribution method had stimulated long discussions atthe Town Planning Institute in 1920.

7

had written a book (The Revelation of Britain : A Book For Colonials, 1909) where init, he put forward the advantages to be had from municipal intervention through re-planning and redistribution.

Figure 2 : Redistribution of German Township (before and after)Source: Reade “Revelation of Britain : A Book For Colonials (1909)

Figure 3: Mathematics of Re-planning and Redistribution(source: Reade, C. Catalogue Second Town Planning and Housing Exhibition 1927)

7 The Japanese land readjustment technique is also adopted from the Lex Adickes method.

8

Figure 4 : Redistribution near Jalan Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur (before and after)Source : Third Annual Report Of Government Town Planner, 1924.

Despite having full knowledge of the ‘inadequacy of existing powers andmachinery…dealing with economic and administrative questions relating toresumptions, methods of rating and valuation of land, also exchanges andredistribution of ownership’ (Reade, 1921), Reade still proceeded to undertake cure ofhaphazard slum development through the re-planning and redistribution method; itwas indeed an ambitious but very demanding task to be undertaken given that other

9

British Dominion experiences (example in Bombay and Madras) showed difficultiesin its slow implementation, notwithstanding accompanying Town Planninglegislature. (Following table from Third Annual report, 1924).

By late 1920s, Reade in his report lamented the difficulties encountered in the methodused :

“The greatest difficulty encountered frequently during the year was to persuaderecalcitrant owners or charges to accept the proposed plans for the systematicdevelopment of the area in which their holdings were situated, even althoughthey were prepared to agree that advantages were to be obtained. As mattersstand any one owner in a scheme or unit can hold up all progress. Generallysuch owners are stubbornly opposed to any proposals either for their own ortheir neighbors’ benefit, “The public welfare” , is a phrase foreign to theirunderstanding or instincts. They lack the public spirit or interest in thedevelopment of the town and usually act on the principle of “what I have Ihold.”

Invariably the first questions that landowners ask are (1) when will this road beconstructed? and (2) who is to pay the cost of such construction, or (3) whenwill Government build the road, (implying that Public Funds will bear the costof all future roads).

Thus by 1926, he wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Government two major concernimpeding town improvement and town development works in the F.M.S.8 which a‘settled financial policy and regular provision would help overcome’ :

“ (i) Compensation and Acquisition: Absence of adequate or designatedfunds for the purpose of compensating landowners or acquiring by

8 Selangor Files no. 4917/26. National Archive, Malaysia.

10

agreement or compulsorily (in the case of lands required for a publicpurpose), lands injuriously affected by preliminary improvement ordevelopment schemes adopted by Town Planning Committees andapproved by Government.

(ii) Roads and Works : Construction and maintenance of certain classes ofroads or widening within reserves proposed to be surrendered by ownersor acquired by the State under such approved schemes.”

Garden City Principle: Its Application In Malaya

Reade had a lesser opportunity to implement Garden City Principles due to economicand administrative expediencies, besides landowners lack of civic and public interestin land development. Such limited opportunity was mainly directed at housing areasfor government quarters and the opportunity to plan anew the town of Kuala KubuBaru.

11

Figure 5 : Imbi Housing Suburb (government quarters) Source : Town Planning Yearly Report 1924. National Archive Malaysia

12

Figure 6 : Kuala Kubu Baru Town

Photo No. 1 : One of the entrance to Kuala Kubu Town.

13

Reade was given the opportunity to plan anew the township of Kuala Kubu Baru(KKB) (about 60 kilometers north from Kuala Lumpur) in 1925, and reported itscompletion about 1928. KKB old site at Ampang Pechah was a constant source ofworry for its residents, as it was perennially flooded by the overflow of the SelangorRiver (The Malay Mail, 8th April 1921). Today much of Reade’s original layout isstill in place and it provides an object lesson of an application of Garden CityPrinciples adapted to a Malayan setting. Indeed it was the first new town (albeit on asmaller scale) planned and built during the British Government period in Malaya (notPetaling Jaya (1955) as is commonly known). The difficulty to implement GardenCity Principles could be seen from the tigh layout and the need to affort greater meansfor transportation requirements as could been seen in the following planning schemesin Kuala Lumpur.

Photo No. 2 :

The Parkland as seen from the Government Offices. Another entrance road to KKB.

14

Figure 7 : Third Annual Report of Government Town Planner, 1924.

Source : National Archive, Malaysia

Hostilities Towards Town Planning/Reade

The Town Planning Enactment of 1923 and its methods (i.e. planning schemes, andre-planning and redistribution) proved to be sources of criticisms from land ownersand unofficials alike. As participation of land owners were crucial to its outcome , ittherefore was a time consuming process. Despite a small staff, with professionals onloan from the technical department (Public Works Department and SurveyDepartment) and the appointment of land administrators to undertake redistributionand negotiation with land owners, much good work was reported accomplished by theplanning department (Yearly Report 1922-1928).

But criticisms from unofficials (particularly those with business interests) andlandowners in the Federal Council meetings and in the media respectively continuesunabated and appeared to reach its climax in 1926. The following is a snapshot of thetype of criticisms leveled at the department or to Reade himself :

(1) Town Planner’s scheme are above criticisms (referring to the need toappoint committee members to criticize Town Planners schemes(Hampshire,1925).

(2) Town Planner’s emolument amounts the same as personal emoluments foradministering the Supreme Court of the Federation (Jones, 1925).

Town Planning SchemesDealt with in 1923(shaded areas)

road widening & negotiationby exchange involvingredistribution proposalsincl. Loke Yew EstateLayout for government quartersReplanning and redistributionof private properties

Factory area

Residential area for factory workersReplanning & negotiations with12 owners and charges

15

(3) Town Planning is a new art and science run by enthusiasts who would beexceedingly dangerous on government expenditure (Jones, 1925).

(4) Delay caused by the operation of the Town Planning Rules (Choo,Jones,1925).

(5) The Town Planner was conferred very wide and extensive powers (givingfree reign to his enthusiasm) (Bailey, 1926).

(6) There were numerous cases in which owners were prevented from buildingthrough the action of the committee (The Malay Mail,1926).

(7) Landlords not prepared to build due to likelihood that a part, if not theentire building and land would be required to meet the designs of theTown Planner, whose scheme, or schemes, is a dark secret (Malay Mail,1926).

Reade refuted all the above allegations, and some of these criticisms weremisinformed about the workings of the Town Planning Enactments 1923. Reade wasonly operating in an advisory capacity. Appointed members could still comment andmade adjustment to his plans. In any case the Hempshire criticisms were answeredwith such appointment in due time when the Enactment came into operation.

Due to Reade’s enthusiasms in carrying out of planning schemes (to prove to thegovernment it could be done), he was variously labelled as an enthusiast, utopianzealot etc. His road widening proposals of major arterials to 100 feet has often been asource of dispute, as it required surrender of such reserve by landowners with cost ofbuilding to be them by the government. Such reserves were meant to be developed ata later date when the need arose and for the government to avoid paying at a muchhigher acquisition cost in the future. Reade (in his yearly report 1923 and subsequentyears) cited many cases in the past where such measures were not taken, resulting indifficulties faced by the government to effect improvement later on.

Rules were needed to implement the re-planning and redistribution schemes on asystematic basis. This took about a year to complete (the length of time taken issimilar to those in Great Britain). As regards to delays in approving layout, the TownPlanning Committee had to ensure plans submitted were in conformity with theGeneral Town Plan and details of re planning and any one landowner in the schemecould delay the approval process.

With regards to transparency, the Town Planner’s scheme is not a dark secret for itcould be viewed at the Town Planning office and discussed to suit owners and publicamenity or public interest (see paragraph 12 of the Town Planning Rules, 1924). Theother criticism on emoluments and perceived large outlay for the department is largelya personal and departmental jealousy view point and a lack of understanding of thecosts involved to undertake various planning activities for all areas in the F.M.S.Reade had already cautioned in his earlier report of 1922 and also in the Second TownPlanning Exhibition (1927), that :

“Any expectation that the complete realization of General Town Plans, orindividual Schemes, in the Federated Malay States will occur within the nextfew years is almost certainly doomed to disappointment. General Town Plans(with complementary details in scheme form) are not things for to-day ;neither can they be carried out next week. Their primary object, in all modern

16

countries, is to lay down and anticipate on paper present and futurerequirements extending over a period of 20 to 25 years. The carrying out andexecution of these plans, or part thereof, when approved, is usually a slow andgradual process keeping pace from year to year with the normal growth of thetown and the prosperity and development of the State. Years of effort andaction are required by the responsible authorities (technical andadministrative) working in cooperation with landowners and others concerned.Town Planning (as European experience demonstrates) is continuous andunceasing. It is an essential part in the life of all towns and cities.”

Although concerned with centralised coordination and consistency in implementingplanning policies, Reade accommodated local power and administrative relationshiprequirements into the 1923 Town Planning Enactment (for example the chairman ofthe Sanitory Board to be also chairman of the TPC), and even, lately reluctantlyagreed to have the TPC under Sanitary Board control in the 1927 Town PlanningEnactment. He was however not able to tolerate administrative officers who werenot supportive of town planning contributions, and subsequently did not have thesupport of the advisors to the High Commissioner (example Peel and Lornie),especially between 1925 and 1927 when criticism of himself was at a high point. Withwaning support from officials, including the High Commissioner (Sir LawrenceGuillemard), Reade’s role was then reduced in the 1927 Town Planning Enactment, tothat of an advisor at the Federal level; assistance to Sanitary Boards would behandled by his Town Planning Superintendents at the State level.

Before such times, he appeared comfortable with the Chief Secretary to the F.M.S.,Sir George Maxwell (who retired in 1926) and other senior Residents (many retiredabout 1926) who were able to understand his vision of town planning; but later newerofficials were not willing” in the face of hostile opinion, disposed to take up thecudgels in defense of constructive work”. 9

Reade felt that “the newspaper campaign was merely symptomatic of a deep seatedopposition fomented by ill informed persons against Town Planning” (Reade, 1927).Some officials felt the permanent appointment of the Government Town Planner wasrepugnant, and tried to use their influence to depreciate the work of the department.Successes of the department were ignored.

For Reade, “there is no such thing as enlightening public opinion or an appeal todisinterested parties at large. Government is largely made up of permanent officialswho, as they approach the age of retirement and pension after a long sojourn in adebilitating climate, are not usually disposed to carry through and administer reformslike Town Planning or housing inaugurated by their predecessors especially where thebulk of the population is native and unofficial opinion is hostile” (Reade, 1927).

His criticisms of unofficials were equally hash but it reflected some truth :

9 Reade , Memorandum regarding Town Planning in Federated Malay States and possible officialreaction against its further development and expansion (1927). Public Record Office, Kew Garden,London CO 273/539/1

17

“Unofficials’ opinions represented largely land mining, rubber and legalinterests. They (have) been conditioned by the fact that nobody remains in thecountry for long, except with the object to acquire sufficient wealth to retire atleisure to more favored parts of the civilized world. They are not disposed totolerate reform of abuses by which money is sometimes made easily at publicexpense”. (Reade, 1927).

Reade left Kuala Lumpur in 1929, and later continued his career in NorthernRhodesia, and lastly to South Africa.10

Conclusion

This paper only provides a snapshot of Reade’s tribulation in the early history of theTown Planning Department in this country. The economic slump of the 1920s wascertainly a major factor hindering disbursement of fund to implement major road andutilities of his town planning schemes. Despite such slump, Kuala Lumpur recordedrapid increase in population and faced acute housing shortages. Reade’s replanningand redistribution approaches was not adequate to handle such demands. Publicinterest ideology was largely an alien concept to a largely migrant urban landowningpopulation, who viewed Malaya as a profit and money making place, and favored theleast of bureaucratic hassle.

Departmental jealousy was rife over the establishment and expansion of the TownPlanning Department ; the Sanitary Board (whose members largely had businessinterests) jealously held on to its town planning powers, and the decentralisationpolicy made this position firmer in their hands.

Thus till this day, town planning matters is largely operated within the localauthorities (although a joint concern of the Federal and State Government) localauthorities are firmly in control of planning and development control power. Despitechanges to the planning legislature in 2001 to streamline State and Federal powersrelated to Town Planning in this country…town planning is largely a decentralizedoperation; a legacy of British policy of indirect rule in Malaya (?).

References :

BRISTOW, M.R. 1996. Colonial Planning In Prewar Malaysia. Occasional PaperNumber 44. Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.

GARNAUT, C. 2002. Charles Reade And The International Diffusion of TownPlanning Ideas. Paper for IPHS Conference.

GOH BAN LEE 1990. Urban Planning in Malaysia : History, Assumptions andIssues. Tempo Publishing.

HOME, ROBERT. 1997. Of Planting and Planning : The Making of British colonialcities. E & Spon.

10 A biography of Charles Reade is currently being undertaken by Dr. Christine Garnaut, University ofSouth Australia. The writer continues to provide assistance and visits to planning sites where Readehad a hand in the planning of the scheme or layout in various parts of the country.

18

HUTCHINGS A 1986. “Comprehensive Town Planning Comes To South Australia”in Hutchings A & Bunker R (eds.) With Conscious Purpose : A History Of TownPlanning In South Australia. Wakefield Press, Adelaide.

KAMALRUDDIN SHAMSUDIN. 1996. Imbasan Sejarah Jabatan PerancanganBandar dan Desa 1921-1996. JPBD Terengganu.

LEE LIK MENG, ABDUL MUTALIP ABDULLAH AND ALIP RAHIM 1990.Town Planning in Malaysia : History & Legislation.

READE, C. 1909. The Revelation of Britain : A Book for Colonials. Facsimilepublished by The Colonel Lights Gardens Historical Society Inc. Adelaide. 1998.

READE , C. 1927. Memorandum regarding Town Planning in Federated MalayStates and possible official reaction against its further development and expansion.Public Record Office CO 273/539/1

READE. C. Catalogue Second Town Planning and Housing Exhibition 1927.Available at JPBD Library, Kuala Lumpur.

The Malay Mail, 8 April 1921.

The Malay Mail, 2nd. December 1926.