Screenshots

What are the REAL reasons for the shift?

Prime land in Jln Parliament? New contract to be awarded to build new building?......

Building democracy - Architecture Inside Out.
Article by 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.

_____________________

WHEN I first laid eyes on the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya, and when I first looked over the country’s new administrative capital, I said to myself that this building and the city it is in will be emulated in other states, even in local municipalities, if on a lesser scale.

Needless to say, I was right: Penang announced its own version of Putrajaya a while back; and the word “Putrajaya” itself now seems synonymous with the ideal architecture of statehood, domes and all.

The Skudai municipality (in Johor) where I live has embellished its streets with ornamented roadways, Art Nouveau lampposts and expensive sculptural landscaping. Everyone seems to be competing to see who can be the biggest, the most lavish and the most grandiose in following in the footsteps of the shiny new city of Putrajaya.

Meanwhile, there is little effort to lay pedestrian-friendly pavements in the streets, make proper crossings for school children, and provide enough libraries, temples, community centres and useable public furniture. The first lesson of democratic architecture has been lost when what is discernable is architecture for the few and not for the many.

Single ethnic references

For an example of what I mean by architecture for the many, one has only to look at the building in which Parliament sits, in Kuala Lumpur. The Parliament building makes no specific ethnic reference, which is one aspect of democratic architecture. Such architecture either uses all ethnic references or none at all.

To emphasise one particular ethnic reference is quite out of sync with a Constitution that guarantees equal rights to all. Granted that Malaysia is, historically, a country of the Malays, but need one shout that message so loudly that one risks breaking eardrums?

The PM’s office in Putrajaya attempts to claim a Muslim heritage with its domes and emphasises its Malay ethnic origins. The Parliament building, on the other hand, sports an international style that makes no ethnic references; instead, it uses this country’s tropical heritage as its dominating theme.

And the ribbed prism on its podium speaks universally of a traditional roof heritage common to most ethnic groups in this region.

Though some architects may frown at my idea of a multi-ethnic, eclectic approach, the fathers of architectural semantics say that such an approach is viable. Of course, to subscribe to this approach, architects have to stretch their minds a little to do some thinking rather than sticking to their usual modus operandi of “typological copying”.

Regionalism and accountability

Next, let us venture into the realm of architectural regionalism. Regionalism as an approach found favour among architects looking to conserve energy.

In Malaysia, experiments with regionalism produced some marvellous buildings, such as the National Mosque in Kuala Lumpur with its use of generous serambi (veranda) areas, air wells and light courts with ventilated wall assembly.

The Parliament building did not go as far as the National Mosque but it does display the famous “pineapple skin” that some say functions as a sun shading device.

It matters not whether there is a great saving of energy in relation to the tower’s cooling load; what matters is that the message of democracy is clear: elected leaders simply cannot mess around with public money held in trust. The money belongs to the people who are the true “bosses” in a democracy.

What does Putrajaya show in reference to minding public funds? There is no discernable attempt to create any kind of shading device or serambi that would act not only to cool the building but also to welcome the people. Its palatial French architecture is clearly an out and out imitation since palaces in temperate climes don’t need shading devices.

Undemocratic language

The architectural language used in Putrajaya is very “imperial” as opposed to the “business as usual” architecture of the Parliament building.

In his writings and speeches, renowned American architect Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) always criticised “palatial” architecture (as exemplified by the federal buildings in Washington DC). He was, in fact, imprisoned for a day when he refused to retract his cutting comments.

Wright felt that by emulating the architecture of aristocratic or autocratic regimes of the past, Washington’s architects did not attempt to portray the new ideals of democracy, which lays the reins of governance in the people’s hands.

Wright’s architecture always chose asymmetrical massing over symmetry, the use of the horizontal expression as a symbol of humility to the “Earth as the Nurturer”, and the celebration of local materials as economic products of weathered quality.

Palace-like architectural characteristics of strong hierarchical symmetry and expensive materials and ornamentation amidst deep setbacks of lavishly landscaped gardens is truly in stark contrast to, say, Parliament House in London.

I feel a sense of a sure and strong nation when I look at this building in London because of its easy accessibility to the public. The building is a stone’s throw from where people walk every day and that speaks volumes about the idea of a democratic nation.

To those who expound the virtues of security in the palatial French format, I wish to say that, in a democracy, the best security is not walls, setbacks and electronic surveillance but simply the idea that if one leader dies, there are many others who can easily take over – unlike in a monarchy, whose very survival depends entirely on the survival of offspring.

Democratic architecture should not hide behind thick walls and setbacks. It should be on the street where the people walk. This would be a true testament to the fact that this is a government of the people for the people and by those very same people. Though the location of Malaysia’s Parliament building is somewhat elitist, set as it is in the midst of much landscaping, the building clearly does not pretend to be a palace behind high walls.

The designers of state architecture would do well to keep this in mind and create buildings that “meet” the people rather than hide behind grand landscaping or walls.

The spirit has been lost

There are so many more issues surrounding the idea of democratic architecture in Malaysia.

In our book, Konsep Perbandaran Islam: Suatu Gagasan Alternatif, Rosdan Abdul Manan and I toy with the idea of a public square in the middle of the country’s capital that is completely accessible to the public – the medan, or public square, is a powerful symbol of a true democracy.

State and federal buildings and mosques are relegated to the perimeter in an asymmetrical layout. We also suggest placing a cemetery adjacent to the square within view of the executive structures. This is to remind the leaders of their mortality and, hence, that the power vested in their persons is but fleeting.

Malaysia’s Parliament was built during the heyday of modernism when metaphorical references were frowned upon. It could not help but be what it is. So, in the absence of a serious study on what influenced its design, I would attribute its democratic architecture to an accident.

Putrajaya, however, was a deliberate act. In one sense, the imperial message it broadcasts does indeed exemplify the nature of “democracy” in Malaysia where many citizens are completely apathetic about the idea of “power to the people”. Yet, as a Malay, a Muslim and as a Malaysian, I cannot bring myself to accept this language as the ideal embodiment of the original spirit of the Malaysian Constitution.

I think the picture should be fixed a bit to show that the building is not lean like tower of pisa; is a bit insulted - thought at first glance that the building is "bengkok" probably because of sinkhole or tremor or something that cause the building need to be replaced....

unlike ktmb and bangunan sultan abdul samad, parlimen is not built by imperialist. It is officiated after malaysia is formed, so the current government has no excuse to say "ketinggalan artifak penjajah" like the said monuments... it is a great shame that the government has no sense of cultural pride here, even in US where we copied the flag has their legislative house over 100 years old.

shame shame shame. by replacing the parlimen, it's implying replacing malaysia and malaysia does not last long. how do you tell to the foreigners what is the country monument ? klcc ? muzium negara ? what's next, redesign the country flag ?

Parliament should stay where it is. We do not need a new building etc, yes do some renovation etc. But what we need is good MPs that can use their brains instead of shouting, using foul language, closing one eyes. So no new hardwarde, just need good software.

And let it be close to the people.

Wouldn't it be worst to ship to Putrajaya? It took 47 years for existing Parliament House to leak, but less than 10 years for Putrajaya's. The renovation cost is simply jacked up. Make it transparent, if Samy will, to let everyone know what is required to repair.

BTW, our country is famous of no-maintenance. First World Infrastructure, Third World Mentality. So no matter where it goes, the result is the same.

It used to be a symbol of a government we respected. But now it represents something that leaks, an opportunity for some well-connected people to make a fortune out of its repair bills, and a house in which some of those who sit in it themselves do not respect it, nor make any effort to earn our respect. In other words, it's rotten, and it's dying of old age before even reaching 50 years. That's how I look at it. Any 'rebranding' won't change my perception. I'm sorry but that's how I feel about it.

It used to be a symbol of a government we respected. But now it represents something that leaks, an opportunity for some well-connected people to make a fortune out of its repair bills, and a house in which some of those who sit in it themselves do not respect it, nor make any effort to earn our respect. In other words, it's rotten, and it's dying of old age before even reaching 50 years. That's how I look at it. Any 'rebranding' won't change my perception. I'm sorry but that's how I feel about it.

It can be resited anywhere, Pulau Jerejak for all one cares, but if the hearts of men have already turned away from good and fair principles to the allure of arrogance and feudalism, no real estate can enhance the meaning and usefulness of the parliament we once knew, long ago.

It's not about a building, save for those who intend to make money again from the repairs. It's not about how it's designed or where it's seated. It's not about a book or the dewan speakers or even the MPs.

It's not about the ruling parties nor the opposition parties; after all, which member of any is not a Malaysian citizen, and by dint of that privilege, carry the onerous responsibilities of protecting the people, the country and the monarchy?

It's about what it means to represent the rakyat and how to synchronise the debates, thoughts, actions and policies to take everyone, regardless of race, religion or creed, to a higher level of existence that will also lift up this very great and moving notion called 'Malaysia'.

We avoid serious and intelligent debates in such a high place at our own peril. Too many of the debates and exchanges in the parliament we no longer know have been too far away and divorced from the realities on the streets, the angsts in the hearts of the rakyats, the visions of realists who have seen the rest of the world, only to return shrouded in great anxiety when we look at what has happened to this state of the nation, when we read everyday what has happened to the people, when we write in blogs and forums from the depths of our souls.

Some of us just get tired of life completely and want to die, as a matter of impending fact.

It is another excuse to make more money. What is wrong if it remains at where it is? Just bloody repair the leaks. If the govt says that it is too expensive to repair the leaks, then I think surely building another building would be more costlier don't you all think?

It is going to be another waste of public money to move the Parliament. What we need to move are the BN clowns inside Parliament....maybe to the moon?

3 words to summarize:

TAK CUKUP MAKAN.

That's why need new and unnecessary development project to fill the coffers and pockets.

Our natural resources here are the trees and land where we have plenty of.

But we do not have the brains. A lot of brains have been imported by Singapore, which is their most important natural resources.

By doing this..they can create a few commission agents. 10 percent for me, 10% for you, 10% for the person giving contracts, 10% for everybody.

They tried Universiti Malaya. They did not succeed. Blood suckers will move every damn building in KL if they have it their way.

Hi Jeff,

Just digressing a little. The picture of the Parliament seemed leaning like the Tower of Pisa.

Was it done on purpose...

JEFF OOI says: Can't say I could interpret as good as you ;-)

May i propose this plot of land along Jalan Ulu Klang? It's lush, green and tranquil.

Though it's currently in a state of disrepair, as it's current keepers are facing financial woes from too many mouths to feed, it's empty domains are full of potential and there are already suitable pre-existing name plaques on the doors for 91% of the inhabitants of parliament should it move there.