On why the Gov’t let the Bok House go.
I was flipping through the Sun this evening and found the much needed explanation for the untimely demolition of the Bok House. In its report,
“The minister, Datuk Seri Rais Yatim, and Heritage Commissioner Prof Datuk Siti Zuraina Majid claimed there was little the government could do to conserve the building because it was private property, and the conservation costs would have been too high.But others have argued that the Act does not differentiate between public or privately-owned buildings, and that it was not necessary to tear down the entire building for development.”
My muddled lil’ brain interprets this statement as the government not being able to do anything to save heritage buildings if they are privately owned, because the government won’t be able to afford buying over the building, much less conserving it afterwards.
According to the article, the Bok House was the first building nominated to be gazetted as National Heritage under the National Heritage Act. However, the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry then responded by saying that it won’t be gazetted as gazettement disallows any development on the structure. Does this mean that conservation activities cannot be carried out on gazetted buildings? Now the gov responds by saying that it cannot protect it because it belongs to a private owner. Does this mean that only government owned buildings will be protected by the Act?
The fate of buildings over 50 years old is not necessarily down retirement lane- the whole of Europe seems to be a museum of old buildings. Even if the building may not be used for its original purposes anymore, the physical structure of the building could always remain with the insides being used for purposes which are more relevant to the present day. Of course it would be sad that the soul of the building may have left, but the presence of the building in the city skyline could be instrumental in telling the tale of a city’s past. Their fate now lies on the owners of these buildings to appreciate the importance of such building’s to the city’s identity, and next seek a balance between conserving heritage and also commercial viability to create a win-win situation.
How else would you explain the CHIJMES in Singapore, former warehouses turned into swanky loft apartments in New York City, or Cathedral-turned-disco in Paris?
Moreover, heritage buildings should be conserved because of the richness in architectural richness that could define our city. I mean what is a city without its character, and conversely what is character without its past?
Lots of people have been describing the present day KL as a soulless city, and with all this happening it is not hard to see why. There was a foreigner guy who wrote a letter to The Star, lamenting of the same…
” Bukit Bintang Girls School, colonial bungalows along Jalan Ipoh, traditional Malay houses in Jalan Gombak, and now the Bok House – they all used to make Kuala Lumpur what it is – a widely celebrated mix of old and new, rural and urban, traditional and futuristic.Most of them made way for faceless, glass-and-steel, box-shaped shopping malls and condominiums which carry zero characteristics that say “Malaysia.”
In fact, they could have been “copied and pasted” from Hong Kong, London , Sydney , or anywhere.”
and
” As Malaysia readies itself for an influx of 20 million tourists every year, it has never been busier razing its architectural and natural legacy.A colonial mansion here, two tennis courts’ worth of undersea corals there ? Tourists enjoy nothing better than things that are authentic, yet at this rate, Kuala Lumpur will soon be offering them nothing but the same Starbucks, Borders and Zara outlets in the same shopping centres and surrounded by the same minimalist condos as in any other city in the world. ”
It’s also quite baffling how the people in Heritage and Tourism do not see a value of these buildings in pulling in tourists who come for a lesson in Malaysian history and culture. Oh goody, our potential tourists would be mighty impressed that we have got the same Tall Mocha Frappucino as the one they have everyday in New York. On top of that, fresh from the news, they will also experience our first-class high tech self-cleaning public toilets although they would also find shoe stains on the toilet seat. Tres Exotique. And their most endearing cultural moment from Chinatown won’t be of any legacies left by our ancestors, but of fake Prada purses and bootleg DVD’s.
PS: The Star also featured another letter about yet another heritage building soon to be lost. This time it is the St Joseph’s Novitiate in Penang. As was the case with Bok House, the reasons given were baffling.
So how now?




Gigi D’alessio in Quanti Amori (2004)
Eros Ramazzotti
Vittorio Grigolo’s In the Hands of Love (2006) 



