Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Cultural Heritage Management and PreservationCultural Identity and HeritageCultural and Artistic Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.

Community Engagement as a Site of Struggle: UNESCO Conventions, Intangible Cultural Heritage, and State Agendas in Malaysia

Sooi Beng, Tan·2022·Music, Communities, Sustainability
DOI 10.1093/oso/9780197609101.003.0008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) and community engagement are sites of contestation. This chapter discusses the complex intersections between the international UNESCO inscriptions and conventions, top-down national policies over the representation of art forms, strategies of local state governments, banning of forms by religious authorities, and the engagement of local cultural bearers in sustaining their ICH. It looks at the development and destinies of the Mak Yong dance theatre of Kelantan (inscribed as a “Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity” in 2005) and the multicultural ICH of George Town (inscribed as a World UNESCO Site together with Malacca in 2008) as case studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oso/9780197609101.003.0008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Blake J. (2008). UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: The implications of community involvement in “safeguarding.” In L. Smith & N. Akagawa (Eds.), Intangible heritage (pp. 45–73). Routledge.
  2. 2018, The challenges of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage., Journal of Tourism Studies,
  3. 2014, No more masterpieces: Tangible impacts and intangible cultural heritage in bordered worlds., Asian Theatre Journal,
  4. 2020, Makyong, a UNESCO “Masterpiece,” negotiating the intangibles of cultural heritage and politicized Islam., Asian Ethnology,
  5. 2012, Music as intangible cultural heritage: Policy, ideology, and practice in the preservation of East Asian traditions
  6. 1977, Cultural planning and general development in Malaysia
  7. 1973, KKBS (Kementerian Kebudayaan, Belia dan Sukan Malaysia or Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports Malaysia).
  8. 2004, Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention: A critical appraisal., Museum International,
  9. 2011, Selecting heritage: The interplay of art, politics and identity., The European Journal of International Law (EJIL),
  10. 2016, A companion to heritage studies
  11. 1991, Malaysia: The way forward. Vision 2020.
  12. 1993, Zapin: Folk dance of the Malay world
  13. 2013, On intangible heritage safeguarding governance: An Asia-Pacific context
  14. Seeger, A. (2009). Lessons learned from the ICTM (NGO) evaluation of nominations for the UNESCO, Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, 2001–5. In L. Smith & N. Akagawa (Eds.), Intangible heritage (pp. 112–128). Routledge.
  15. 2016, Sustainable futures for music cultures: An ecological perspective
  16. 2009, Intangible heritage
  17. 1990, The performing arts in Malaysia: State and society., Asian Music
  18. 1993, A social and stylistic history of popular Malay opera
  19. Tan Sooi Beng. (2000). The Chinese performing arts and cultural activities in Malaysia. In Lee Kam Hing & Tan Chee-Beng (Eds.), The Chinese in Malaysia (pp. 316–341). Oxford University Press.
  20. 2003, Multi-culturalism or one national culture: Cultural centralization and the recreation of the traditional performing arts in Malaysia., Journal of Chinese Ritual, Theatre and Folklore,
  21. Tan Sooi Beng. (2015). Cultural engagement and ownership through participatory approaches in applied ethnomusicology. In S. Pettan & J. T. Titon (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of applied ethnomusicology (pp. 109–133). Oxford University Press. · DOI
  22. Tan Sooi Beng. (2018). Community musical theatre and interethnic peace-building in Malaysia. In B-L. Bartleet & L. Higgins (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of community music (pp. 243–264). Oxford University Press. · DOI
  23. 2019, Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia (JOSA),
  24. 2017, Potehi of Penang: An evolving heritage
  25. 1987, Our common future.
  26. 2012, Report: The Mak Yong Spiritual Dance Heritage Conference, performances and workshops., Asian Theatre Journal,

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sooi Beng, T.
Venue
Music, Communities, Sustainability
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York
Published
2022-08-10
Pages
139-157
DOI
10.1093/oso/9780197609101.003.0008
OpenAlex
W4296625891
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
FWCI
10.12
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Cultural Identity and Heritage
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Cultural and Artistic Studies
Keywords
intangible cultural heritage, community participation, cultural policy, Kelantan, George Town, multicultural heritage, heritage contestation, state cultural policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review