8th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE

ASIAN PLANNING SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION

TH
11-14 SEPTEMBER 2005

CHARLES CROMPTON READE

AND THE INTRODUCTION OF TOWN PLANNING SERVICE IN
BRITISH MALAYA
(1921-1929)
ORIGINATING PLANNING FOCUS AND HOSTILITIES WITHIN A SLUMP
ECONOMY

Kamalruddin Shamsudin
Federal 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, the
town 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 its
influence and effectiveness; centralised town planning was lost towards the end of the 1920s. Today
town planning historians have rescued Reade from obscurity and acknowledged his contributions
during the nascent development of town planning as a profession worldwide and its diffusion
throughout the British Colonies.

Keywords:

Replanning and redistribution, garden city ideology.

Introduction

A number of local planning academicians and an increasing number of international

historians have recently rescued Reade from obscurity and acknowledged his
contribution 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 balanced
view 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 on
Reade’s contributions be made to obtain a clearer picture of the person and events surrounding the
early development of the planning service in Malaya. International historians, for example Garnaut
(2002), Bristow (1996), Hutchings (1986) and Home (2000) have generally rescued Reade from
obscurity and recognized his role in the nascent development of town planning worldwide in the late
nineteen century.

1
first generation of self-styled town planner working in the British colonies promoting
the 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 within
an indirect British rule in Malaya.

Two major areas of historical interests framed this article. Firstly, his planning
ideologies and methods applied (re-planning and redistribution of lots)2 and secondly,
to a lesser extent, the garden city design principles which he steadfastly held
throughout his whole career till his untimely death in Johannesburg, South Africa in
1933.

Both ideologies were ‘alien’ to landowners and their agents in Malaya. Such methods
and ideologies provide a fascinating analysis of conflicting interests within a British
rule favoring appeasing property interest and maintaining the status quo over the
social concerns of eradicating and prevention of slum and haphazard development in
the 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 up
to be a journalist, he soon became interested in urban development issues: writing
about slums conditions, urban deprivations and the need for systematic planning in
the industrialization period. This soon led him to learning the art and science of town
planning 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 of
industrialisation on human settlement and examples of good municipal planning to
cure urban slums.

Charles Reade in Australia

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

In South Australia, he introduced a town planning legislature, established the South

Australian Town Planning Department (today called Planning South Australia) and a
number of planning schemes. Of the planning schemes in Adelaide, Mitcham Garden
Suburb, is today a heritage garden suburb, renamed Colonel Lights Gardens. Reade
applied 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 local
and 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 various
files kept at the National Archives, Kuala Lumpur and Public Records at Kew Garden, provides
valuable resource into understanding the working of this planning approach.

2
park belt system to Adelaide, further enhancing the existing park belt laid out by
Colonel William Lights (son to Colonel Francis Light of Penang)3.

The introduction of a planning legislature for South Australia was however not plain
sailing, it was only on his second attempt that the planning legislature he proposed
was accepted but with much deletion to important planning ideas; a major one
involved having an authority to coordinate and implement planning schemes (along
the American Planning Commission). South Australian planning historians today are
generally 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 lobbyist
against his planning ideals, and a small pay (£700), Reade decided it was time to
leave for greener pastures.

Establishment of the Town Planning Department in Malaya

Reade established a small town planning department in Kuala Lumpur on 18th January
1921. He did an immediate survey of the conditions of towns in the country and
reported this to the government. His report on the need for a permanent town planning
machinery for Malaya, entitled “Town Planning And Development In The Federated
Malay 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 need
for a legislature to manage the growth of towns in a orderly manner, emphasizing on
prevention 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 Federal
Town and Country Planning library, Kuala Lumpur).

3
 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 with
executive roles for their implementation. The British Resident for Selangor was its
Chairman with members from main technical departments. Much was accomplished
through this committee. The application of re-planning and redistribution of awkward
lots along the German land pooling method (Lex Adickes, 1902) was used. This
method was not a common instrument/practice in Britain. However, re-planning and
redistribution were already applied in India and a number of British Dominions
(example Bombay Act, 1911), and a common practice in Germany and Netherlands
where planning was highly plan-based in contrast to a policy-based planning approach
in Britain…a fact not commonly known or differentiated. Thus Reade combined
‘town planning scheme approach’ and the ‘re-planning and redistribution methods’ in
the 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 such
principle; and he only saw a closer semblance of the Garden City principle in the
layout of government quarters and a limited number of applications for existing
towns. An exception was the new town at Kuala Kubu Baru (KKB perhaps is his only
lasting legacy still standing today, a fact not commonly known to many). Some
description on KKB will be given later in this paper. Land owners and property
developers generally placed little appreciation for the development of pleasing
townscape with beauty and safety, favoring hefty profit in the ‘young’ Malayan
townscape.

4
Town Planning Enactment, 19234

Thus the legislature which he introduced and enacted in 1923 was largely aimed at
prevention, with supporting measures for curing current urban ills (slum and poor
subdivisions). 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 easily
passed despite a number of oppositions from unofficials, was due to this assurance
that the legislature was not going to burden the government and that it would be
reviewed after a year practical experience. This one year practical experience was
soon quickly taken-up by his opponents to the Enactment.

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

Although the government appeared concerned with both curing and prevention of
urban ills in the F.M.S. towns, it lacked commitment to invest adequate financial
outlay for such planning schemes. The lack of funds for constructing new roads in the
planning schemes was a recurrent complaint from landowners. The Times of Malaya
and the Malay Mail on numerous occasions highlighted this weakness. Thus, curing
without financial outlay poses a greater obstacle to solving the issue, understandably
given the slump and poor economic situation world wide. Reade’s initial suggestion
that part of the solution could be had through exchanges of state land with those of
private owners was a novel ideas, through re-planning and redistribution, an idea he
learned from Germany (Lex Adickes, 1902)…but he soon encountered oppositions
from landowners largely lacking in public interest or civic concerns.

Re-planning and redistribution, was an idea far in advance of its time, and in Malaya
it proved difficult to implement given the lack of strong government commitment,
trained professionals in land re-plotting, lack of strong co-operations from land
administrators, and a lack of public interest ideology among land owners. But he
persisted with both ideas; prevention in the form of a General Town Plan, and cure
through re-planning and redistribution of lots. Although he worked hard in securing
successes in both areas between 1921 and 1924, it was not enough to convince its
longevity. The Federal Council was largely influenced by property and commercial
development lobbyists and it lacked any sustained political will in such re-planning
method despite acknowledging the need to remedy previous haphazard development.
Further the uneasy relationship between the High Commissioner (Sir Lawrence
Guillemard) and the Chief Secretary (Sir George Maxwell) had not benefited the town
planning cause ; the former staunchly for decentralisation policy, and the latter for
retaining 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 Mutalip
Abdullah and Alip Rahim, Town Planning In Malaysia – History and Legislature (USM, 1990), and
M.R. Bristow, Colonial Planning In Prewar Malaysia (1996).

5
Such TPC was also incorporated into the 1923 enactment. However, its role and
chairmanship of the TPC was not supported by Sanitary Board officers and their
lobbyists because the TPC was not under the Sanitary Board purview. This setup
although meant to promote greater coordination and control from Kuala Lumpur, was
seen to be taking away the powers of the Sanitary Board, although the chairman of the
Board, was latterly made chairman to the TPC. Indeed departmental jealousies have
made difficult the implementation of many of the planning schemes (for example
recalcitrant town Planning administrators seconded from the Land Office). Further,
the implementation of the British Government’s decentralization policy under Sir
Lawrence Guillemard was quick to remove such a setup, the TPC was seen not in line
with such a policy.

At a glance, one could surmise that the fate of TPC was dependent on the outcome of
the centralise/decentralise debate. The then Chief Secretary’s (Sir George Maxwell)
reluctance to go for the full extent of decentralization supported it, but upon his
retirement in 1926, the decentralisation policy had inevitably, largely disadvantaged
the position of a centralized town planning, in particular where coordination and
consistency in Town Planning policies was concerned 5.

In addition, the Town Planning Enactment of 1923 needed another year to be made
operational (through Town Planning Rules). Suffice to say, opposition to his
enactment 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 official
members largely in opposition to the 1923 enactment. Reade during the review
process was away on long leave to China, Japan, America and to Britain, examining
latest development in Town Planning legislature to strengthen the one in Malaya.

Reade although had a number of success at re-planning and redistribution in the

F.M.S. was not able to convince the Federal Council that the 1923 enactment be
continued, with relevant changes, particularly, requiring financial outlay in advance
of town planning schemes, and that outlying areas outside of the Sanitory Board be
planned along a regional planning format. Both ideas were not taken up. Sir Lawrance
Guillemard, the High Commissioner, not convinced of Reade’s contribution was also
advised to reduce the role played by Reade. However, Reade’s idea of maintaining
planning service to the Sanitary Board through a Town Planning Superintendent was
adopted and incorporated into the 1927 Town Planning Enactment). The latter idea,
regional planning, was only taken up after Malaya got its independence, and
incorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act, 1976, and strengthened further
in 2001.

The Replanning and Redistribution method6

This method was based on the highly successful German land pooling method (Lex
Adickes, 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 both
Federal and the State Government on town planning matters. And town planning operation, through
development 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 at
the Town Planning Institute in 1920.

6
had written a book (The Revelation of Britain : A Book For Colonials, 1909) where in
it, 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.

7
 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 and

machinery…dealing with economic and administrative questions relating to
resumptions, methods of rating and valuation of land, also exchanges and
redistribution of ownership’ (Reade, 1921), Reade still proceeded to undertake cure of
haphazard slum development through the re-planning and redistribution method; it
was indeed an ambitious but very demanding task to be undertaken given that other

8
British Dominion experiences (example in Bombay and Madras) showed difficulties
in its slow implementation, notwithstanding accompanying Town Planning
legislature. (Following table from Third Annual report, 1924).

By late 1920s, Reade in his report lamented the difficulties encountered in the method
used :
“The greatest difficulty encountered frequently during the year was to persuade
recalcitrant owners or charges to accept the proposed plans for the systematic
development of the area in which their holdings were situated, even although
they were prepared to agree that advantages were to be obtained. As matters
stand any one owner in a scheme or unit can hold up all progress. Generally
such owners are stubbornly opposed to any proposals either for their own or
their neighbors’ benefit, “The public welfare” , is a phrase foreign to their
understanding or instincts. They lack the public spirit or interest in the
development of the town and usually act on the principle of “what I have I
hold.”

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

Thus by 1926, he wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Government two major concern
impeding 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 designated

funds for the purpose of compensating landowners or acquiring by

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

9
 agreement or compulsorily (in the case of lands required for a public
purpose), lands injuriously affected by preliminary improvement or
development schemes adopted by Town Planning Committees and
approved by Government.

(ii) Roads and Works : Construction and maintenance of certain classes of

roads or widening within reserves proposed to be surrendered by owners
or 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 economic
and administrative expediencies, besides landowners lack of civic and public interest
in land development. Such limited opportunity was mainly directed at housing areas
for government quarters and the opportunity to plan anew the town of Kuala Kubu
Baru.

10
 Figure 5 : Imbi Housing Suburb (government quarters)
Source : Town Planning Yearly Report 1924. National Archive Malaysia

11
Figure 6 : Kuala Kubu Baru Town

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

12
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 its
completion about 1928. KKB old site at Ampang Pechah was a constant source of
worry for its residents, as it was perennially flooded by the overflow of the Selangor
River (The Malay Mail, 8th April 1921). Today much of Reade’s original layout is
still in place and it provides an object lesson of an application of Garden City
Principles adapted to a Malayan setting. Indeed it was the first new town (albeit on a
smaller scale) planned and built during the British Government period in Malaya (not
Petaling Jaya (1955) as is commonly known). The difficulty to implement Garden
City Principles could be seen from the tigh layout and the need to affort greater means
for transportation requirements as could been seen in the following planning schemes
in Kuala Lumpur.

Photo No. 2 :

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

13
 Town Planning Schemes
Dealt with in 1923
(shaded areas)

road widening & negotiation

by exchange involving
redistribution proposals
incl. Loke Yew Estate
Layout for government quarters
Replanning and redistribution
of private properties

Factory area

Residential area for factory workers

Replanning & negotiations with
12 owners and charges

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, and
re-planning and redistribution) proved to be sources of criticisms from land owners
and unofficials alike. As participation of land owners were crucial to its outcome , it
therefore was a time consuming process. Despite a small staff, with professionals on
loan from the technical department (Public Works Department and Survey
Department) and the appointment of land administrators to undertake redistribution
and negotiation with land owners, much good work was reported accomplished by the
planning department (Yearly Report 1922-1928).

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

(1) Town Planner’s scheme are above criticisms (referring to the need to
appoint committee members to criticize Town Planners schemes
(Hampshire,1925).
(2) Town Planner’s emolument amounts the same as personal emoluments for
administering the Supreme Court of the Federation (Jones, 1925).

14
 (3) Town Planning is a new art and science run by enthusiasts who would be
exceedingly 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 (giving
free reign to his enthusiasm) (Bailey, 1926).
(6) There were numerous cases in which owners were prevented from building
through the action of the committee (The Malay Mail,1926).
(7) Landlords not prepared to build due to likelihood that a part, if not the
entire building and land would be required to meet the designs of the
Town Planner, whose scheme, or schemes, is a dark secret (Malay Mail,
1926).

Reade refuted all the above allegations, and some of these criticisms were
misinformed about the workings of the Town Planning Enactments 1923. Reade was
only operating in an advisory capacity. Appointed members could still comment and
made adjustment to his plans. In any case the Hempshire criticisms were answered
with 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 the
government it could be done), he was variously labelled as an enthusiast, utopian
zealot etc. His road widening proposals of major arterials to 100 feet has often been a
source of dispute, as it required surrender of such reserve by landowners with cost of
building to be them by the government. Such reserves were meant to be developed at
a later date when the need arose and for the government to avoid paying at a much
higher acquisition cost in the future. Reade (in his yearly report 1923 and subsequent
years) cited many cases in the past where such measures were not taken, resulting in
difficulties faced by the government to effect improvement later on.

Rules were needed to implement the re-planning and redistribution schemes on a

systematic basis. This took about a year to complete (the length of time taken is
similar to those in Great Britain). As regards to delays in approving layout, the Town
Planning Committee had to ensure plans submitted were in conformity with the
General Town Plan and details of re planning and any one landowner in the scheme
could delay the approval process.

With regards to transparency, the Town Planner’s scheme is not a dark secret for it
could be viewed at the Town Planning office and discussed to suit owners and public
amenity or public interest (see paragraph 12 of the Town Planning Rules, 1924). The
other criticism on emoluments and perceived large outlay for the department is largely
a personal and departmental jealousy view point and a lack of understanding of the
costs 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 Town
Planning Exhibition (1927), that :

“Any expectation that the complete realization of General Town Plans, or

individual Schemes, in the Federated Malay States will occur within the next
few 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

15
 countries, is to lay down and anticipate on paper present and future
requirements extending over a period of 20 to 25 years. The carrying out and
execution of these plans, or part thereof, when approved, is usually a slow and
gradual process keeping pace from year to year with the normal growth of the
town and the prosperity and development of the State. Years of effort and
action are required by the responsible authorities (technical and
administrative) working in cooperation with landowners and others concerned.
Town Planning (as European experience demonstrates) is continuous and
unceasing. It is an essential part in the life of all towns and cities.”

Although concerned with centralised coordination and consistency in implementing

planning policies, Reade accommodated local power and administrative relationship
requirements into the 1923 Town Planning Enactment (for example the chairman of
the Sanitory Board to be also chairman of the TPC), and even, lately reluctantly
agreed to have the TPC under Sanitary Board control in the 1927 Town Planning
Enactment. He was however not able to tolerate administrative officers who were
not supportive of town planning contributions, and subsequently did not have the
support 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. With
waning support from officials, including the High Commissioner (Sir Lawrence
Guillemard), Reade’s role was then reduced in the 1927 Town Planning Enactment, to
that of an advisor at the Federal level; assistance to Sanitary Boards would be
handled 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 retired
about 1926) who were able to understand his vision of town planning; but later newer
officials were not willing” in the face of hostile opinion, disposed to take up the
cudgels in defense of constructive work”. 9

Reade felt that “the newspaper campaign was merely symptomatic of a deep seated
opposition fomented by ill informed persons against Town Planning” (Reade, 1927).
Some officials felt the permanent appointment of the Government Town Planner was
repugnant, 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 to

disinterested parties at large. Government is largely made up of permanent officials
who, as they approach the age of retirement and pension after a long sojourn in a
debilitating climate, are not usually disposed to carry through and administer reforms
like Town Planning or housing inaugurated by their predecessors especially where the
bulk 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 official
reaction against its further development and expansion (1927). Public Record Office, Kew Garden,
London CO 273/539/1

16
 “Unofficials’ opinions represented largely land mining, rubber and legal
interests. They (have) been conditioned by the fact that nobody remains in the
country for long, except with the object to acquire sufficient wealth to retire at
leisure to more favored parts of the civilized world. They are not disposed to
tolerate reform of abuses by which money is sometimes made easily at public
expense”. (Reade, 1927).

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

Conclusion

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

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

Thus till this day, town planning matters is largely operated within the local
authorities (although a joint concern of the Federal and State Government) local
authorities are firmly in control of planning and development control power. Despite
changes to the planning legislature in 2001 to streamline State and Federal powers
related to Town Planning in this country…town planning is largely a decentralized
operation; a legacy of British policy of indirect rule in Malaya (?).

References :

BRISTOW, M.R. 1996. Colonial Planning In Prewar Malaysia. Occasional Paper

Number 44. Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester.

GARNAUT, C. 2002. Charles Reade And The International Diffusion of Town

Planning Ideas. Paper for IPHS Conference.

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

HOME, ROBERT. 1997. Of Planting and Planning : The Making of British colonial
cities. E & Spon.
10
A biography of Charles Reade is currently being undertaken by Dr. Christine Garnaut, University of
South Australia. The writer continues to provide assistance and visits to planning sites where Reade
had a hand in the planning of the scheme or layout in various parts of the country.

17
HUTCHINGS A 1986. “Comprehensive Town Planning Comes To South Australia”
in Hutchings A & Bunker R (eds.) With Conscious Purpose : A History Of Town
Planning In South Australia. Wakefield Press, Adelaide.

KAMALRUDDIN SHAMSUDIN. 1996. Imbasan Sejarah Jabatan Perancangan

Bandar 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. Facsimile

published by The Colonel Lights Gardens Historical Society Inc. Adelaide. 1998.

READE , C. 1927. Memorandum regarding Town Planning in Federated Malay

States 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.

18