Proposal to Add Asia/Penampang to IANA Time Zone Database
Dear tz maintainers, I am submitting a formal proposal to add a new time zone entry: Asia/Penampang. The proposal seeks to represent the distinct historical, geographic, and cultural identity of Penampang and greater Kota Kinabalu (Sabah, East Malaysia) in the IANA Time Zone Database. The full proposal is hosted publicly here: https://github.com/dmmartin/Asia-Penampang-Proposal This submission builds on precedent (e.g., Asia/Kuching for Sarawak) and is fully aligned with the IANA project's criteria for regionally distinct zones, even where UTC offsets are identical. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Denis Martin Sabah Time Zone Advocacy penampang.tzproposal@fakemail.org Denis Martin
Not speaking as a tz maintainer... Denis Martin wrote:
I am submitting a formal proposal to add a new time zone entry: Asia/Penampang.
The proposal seeks to represent the distinct historical, geographic, and cultural identity of Penampang and greater Kota Kinabalu (Sabah, East Malaysia) in the IANA Time Zone Database.
That isn’t what tz identifiers are for. They represent regions that have followed the same time zone rules (UTC offset, daylight-saving offset and dates) since 1970. They are not intended to identify locations with “distinct historical, geographic, and cultural identity.” Indeed, many well-known locations do not have distinct tz identifiers on the sole basis of their unique identity; Beijing is an example. The theory.html file included in the tz database gives the criteria for assigning (or not assigning) unique entries, including this: “If all clocks in a region have agreed since 1970, give them just one name even if some of the clocks disagreed before 1970, or reside in different countries or in notable or faraway locations. Otherwise these tables would become annoyingly large. For example, do not create a name Indian/Crozet as a near-duplicate or alias of Asia/Dubai merely because they are different countries or territories, or their clocks disagreed before 1970, or the Crozet Islands are notable in their own right, or the Crozet Islands are not adjacent to other locations that use Asia/Dubai.”
This submission builds on precedent (e.g., Asia/Kuching for Sarawak) and is fully aligned with the IANA project's criteria for regionally distinct zones, even where UTC offsets are identical.
Asia/Kuching is not the precedent you may think it is. According to the tz database, that region has observed UTC+8 since 1945, while Asia/Singapore observed UTC+7:30 between 1945 and 1981, and only switched to UTC+8 at the start of 1982. The two zones have followed different rules during the period since 1970, and thus the two identifiers are justified. If you have or can provide evidence that Penampang or Kota Kinabalu has observed timekeeping rules in the period since 1970 that are not duplicated by other zones, please share that information. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 11:51, Doug Ewell via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
That isn’t what tz identifiers are for. They represent regions that have followed the same time zone rules (UTC offset, daylight-saving offset and dates) since 1970. They are not intended to identify locations with “distinct historical, geographic, and cultural identity.”
Doug articulates this correctly. Quoting Point 1 in the "Rationale" section of Denis' linked proposal document: 1. Historical Time Zone Distinction:
- Prior to 1982, Malaysia operated with two separate time zones: - West Malaysia (Peninsular): UTC+07:30 - East Malaysia (Sabah & Sarawak): UTC+08:00 - In 1982, the Malaysian government unified the time zones under UTC+08:00 nationwide. While this change brought West Malaysia ahead of its solar time, it was naturally aligned with Sabah's geographic solar noon.
Sabah & Sarawak have matched Brunei in staying on UTC+08:00 since before
1970, and so are already covered by Asia/Kuching. Peninsular Malaysia shifted from UTC+07:30 to +08:00 at the same time as Singapore at the start of 1982, and so is already covered by Asia/Singapore. Because both of these cases are already handled by our existing data, Point 1 forms a strong case for NOT creating a new zone. Denis' Points 2 ("Geographical and Civil Uniqueness") and 3 ("Cultural Recognition and Technical Use") don't really factor into consideration for whether a separate zone is needed. Please review: https://data.iana.org/time-zones/data/theory.html
If you have or can provide evidence that Penampang or Kota Kinabalu has observed timekeeping rules in the period since 1970 that are not duplicated by other zones, please share that information.
This is the caveat as always. If any region's wall-clock times from 1970 onward cannot be faithfully represented by existing zones, do let us know and be sure to provide links to reliable sources supporting such claims for our review. -- Tim Parenti
participants (3)
-
Denis Martin -
Doug Ewell -
Tim Parenti