Inception, Mahasiswa & Puasa Power

sumber > http://www.popteevee.net

Architecture of Many Malaysia

Many races, cultures and beliefs make up this country. Should not our public structures reflect this?

THE month of August is here again and patriotism and Merdeka is in the air. There will be repeated reminders of how lucky we are to live in a peaceful nation and how important it is to think as one nation.

I have no quarrel with all that, especially if the 1Malaysia concept is aimed at fostering national unity.

But in today’s column, I will venture an argument that, sometimes, it is better to be a Many Malaysia and admit to our differences while understanding and tolerating them rather than a 1Malaysia with the feeling of forcing one ethnic group’s values unto other ethnic groups. This is particularly so in the field of architecture.

Two decades ago, when, as a young and eager lecturer, I first stepped foot into Universiti Teknologi Malaysia’s (UTM) main campus in Johor, the architecture spoke of 1Malaysia all right – but it was more 1Melayu Malaysia, as the structures displayed a neo-vernacular Malay language topped by a monumental statement of Islamicism in the form of a classical Middle Eastern assemblage.

Two campuses and a hall: Note the classically Middle Eastern assemblage (above) on UTM’s Johor campus, contrasted with the older city campus’ (below) universalist architectural language shown in this old image. – utm.my/registrar

The original UTM campus at Jalan Gurney (now Jalan Semarak), Kuala Lumpur, was an assemblage of universalist architecture with no trace of any ethnic-centred monumental statements – because, I maintain, it had been built before the Mahathir administration (1981-2003).

The Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) campus in Bangi, Selangor, is similar to the original UTM as well as Universiti Malaya (UM) in KL and Universiti Pertanian (now Putra, UPM) Malaysia in Selangor – none of them make ethnic-centred architectural statements.

When I lecture about the idea of a national architecture, I say that it should not exist. This may seem a contradictory statement, unpatriotic, even. The problem here is that my critics have one idea of democracy and the implications of multi-culturalism while my understanding is waaaay different.

I am, in fact, one who agrees with our tourism slogan, which I think spells out precisely and succinctly who we are as Malaysians: Malaysia, truly Asia. What does the slogan mean? To me it means that we are a nation of many colours, many cultures, many beliefs and many talents. And what does that mean in architectural terms? Many kinds of building languages, not just one.

But if one were to argue that there must be a common and shared language, I would certainly agree. I say, let that common language be housing estates designed to be safe for our children and crime-free, with sustainable, energy-saving architecture that offers structures that can expand to suit a growing family’s needs, that offers spaces in which our old and infirm can be at ease and comfortable. That is universalist language. We should not have to be forced into an argument over whether the Minangkabau roof is the sacrosanct emblem of Malaysianness.

Actually, it’s not even “Malay”, as some would understand it. We should not even be too gung ho with a neo-Malay vernacular simply because over 60% of the country is of that ethnic group.

Instead, I would like to put forward two kinds of architecture that would answer the idea of an architecture for Malaysia, or what politicians like to refer to as a “national” architecture.

Firstly, take a good look at buildings that were erected in the 1960s and 1970s. What do we find? The Parliament building, the National Mosque and Angkasapuri, which houses RTM. Where is the neo-Malay vernacular or fanciful Middle Eastern Islamic garb? Tak ada.

As with the UTM city campus, UKM, UPM and UM, the language was universalism. Okay, fine, they’re a bit boring to look at compared to the Crystal Mosque in Kuala Terengganu or the splendour of KL’s Masjid Wilayah.

But this was a time when political leaders knew that their first responsibility was to the citizens and not personal glory. The architecture of public buildings from these decades is, to me, a solid demonstration of the fact that leadership then was viewed as a responsibility.

Now let us walk down memory lane to Malacca, that metropolitan melting pot of the first “Malaysia”. What do we find at the city centre? A glorious cacophony of Malay, Islamic, Chinese, Indian, Portuguese, Dutch, English, Baba and so many others that, as a non-traveller, I would not even venture to guess about.

A mosque sits next to a Chinese temple, which is close to other temples and churches, and they all sit together with ease and comfort. There is no incident in all the annals of Malacca of anyone stepping on a cow’s head to express disdain over a temple being built close to a mosque.

There are also newer buildings that can still teach lessons in democracy,
like Johor Baru’s Dewan Jubli Intan.

Are we not proud of Malacca? Yes! We are even conserving Malacca. (Erm, well, hopefully, anyway.)

And why are we conserving the multiplicity of ethnic architectural language, a rojak of design and cultural statements? For tourism!

So, when we want to make money, we celebrate Many Malaysia, but when we want to govern, it’s from the city’s Graha Makmur municipality building with its Malay-influenced architecture, and we’re back to One (ethnic) Malaysia sahaja. When we want to send our children to public universities, there is only One ethnic architecture for Malaysia.

Something does not click here. What are we, actually: One or Many? Would we like to be One, with every ethnic group toeing the line set by One other ethnic group? Or should we be Many, respecting all ethnic groups and learning seriously to understand and accept one another’s beliefs? I, for one, would like my children to grow up in a Many Malaysia.

After over a half century of Merdeka, what have we to show today? If there was one thing that I have learnt after years of reading on and thinking of architecture is that a building never lies. I can read the history of changing or unchanging cultural values and political intentions just by looking at a building’s design and lay out. And my current reading of most of our modern public buildings is that we have fallen away from the path on which Tunku Abdul Rahman left us.

So what is my architectural Merdeka message?

For housing and the city, let the glorious cacophony of the Malacca era rise once again. Let us be rojak and not pretend to like standardised “coffee house cake”. Let us be pedas in our rojak – though not to the level of causing gastro-intestinal problems, of course!

For our universities and administrative buildings, let us embrace again the spirit that built Parliament house and UKM’s Jalan Gurney campus where universalist tropicality rules.

Or if there is an urge for symbolism, let the utterly democratic Dewan Jubli Intan of Johor pave the way towards a discourse on post-modern multi-cultural eclecticism. Let us do away with the ethnic supremist attitude in our national structures.

We are not One, we are Many. During this Merdeka, let us celebrate our strength in being Many Malaysia with a common attitude of harmony and understanding.

■ Universiti Teknologi Malaysia lecturer Prof Dr Mohamad Tajuddin passionately believes that architectural design that respects cultural values, religious sensitivities and the ideals of democracy is vital to nation-building and harmony.