Not One Malaysia, but a many Malaysia

WHENEVER the month of August comes around, as it will this year, the hype about patriotism and ‘merdeka’ would be in the air.

The television and radio waves will resound with the chime of One Malaysia and a reminder of how ‘lucky’ we are to be a peaceful nation and how important it is to think as one nation.

Well, I will offer an argument that it is better to be a Many Malaysia and admit to our differences whilst understanding and tolerating them, rather than a One Malaysia by forcing one particular ethnic group’s ethnic values unto others.

This column takes a quick look at Malaysian architectural attempts at defining a national architecture as a discourse tool in looking at the problem of society and nation building. Both are actually reflective of one another in issue and solution.

At Universiti Teknologi Malaysia’s main campus in Johor, the architecture speaks of a One Malaysia 23 years ago when I first stepped foot there as a young and eager lecturer. But the glaring One Malaysia might as well be One Melayu Malaysia as the architecture displays neovernacular Malay architecture topped by a monumental statement of Islamism in the form of a classical Middle Eastern eclectic assemblage.

The original UTM at Jalan Gurney (now Jalan Semarak) was an assemblage of universalist architecture with no trace of any ethnic-centred monumental statements simply because it was built during the pre-Mahathirian era.

The UKM campus in Bangi was no different than the UTM city campus, as well as UM and UPM. But the International Islamic University Malaysia and the UTM main campus proclaimed a new political ideology of One Malaysia, different than those propagated by the Father of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra.

It was now the era of a dominant single ethnic group using Islam as a main political tool to rally calls of patriotism.

The architectural reading of the two campuses in Johor and Gombak is distinctly clear.

The stage for One MelayuIslam Malaysia was set and it culminated in the ‘glorious’ idea of Putrajaya.

When I lecture about the idea of a national architecture, I say that it should not exist. This may seem a devastating statement and unpatriotic.

The problem here is my critics understand one idea of democracy and the implications of multiculturalism, whilst I understand it way differently. I am one who agrees with our tourism slogan, which spelled 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.

Well, if one was to argue that there must be a common and shared language, I would certainly agree.

Let that common language be safe housing planning and design for our children, crime free planning for the housing estates, tropical and sustainable energy saving architecture, an expandable building to cope for many growing needs, and a way for our old and infirm to use spaces with ease and comfort. Those are the universalist language.

We should not have to be forced into an argument whether the Minangkabau roof is the sacrosanct emblem of Malaysianness. 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 per cent of the country is of that ethnic group. I 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 the buildings in the 60s and 70s. What do we find? The Parliament Building, the National Mosque, and Angkasapuri. 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 or the splendour of Masjid Wilayah.

But this was the time when political leaders knew that their responsibility first was to the citizens and not personal wealth and glory. As the architecture shows, to me, leadership then was a responsibility.

As again with the present hundreds of millions of ringgit of public buildings, leadership now is about personal gain and self-glory. Call me wrong, but architecture never lies. You just have to know how to read it.

Now let us walk down memory lane to Melaka, 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.

A mosque sits next to a Chinese temple, which is close to other temples and churches with ease and comfort.

There was no incident in the whole annals of Melaka of stepping on a cow’s head by one religious group expressing patriotic disdain over a temple being built so close to a mosque.

Are we not proud of Melaka? Yes! Are we conserving Melaka? Yes … err ... hopefully anyway.

Now answer this question. Why in heavens name 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, Malaysia is Many Asia, but when we are going to govern her, suddenly the Graha Makmur Municipality building is the architecture of 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. So what are we actually? One or many? Would we like to be one where every ethnic group has to toe the line of a single group or should we be many, respecting all ethnic groups and learning seriously to understand and tolerate one another’s beliefs? I’d like my children to grow in a ‘Many Malaysia’.

After over half a century of merdeka, what have we to show today? A Malay NGO shouting about Malay rights, the same ethnic group’s claim over an Arabic term for God, the burning of churches by ‘mysterious individuals’, the denigrating of Hindus by stepping on a cow’s head, the tearing and stepping on pictures of political leaders of an ethnic minority group, and many, many more ethnic-related injustices which are beyond this column to reiterate. What is the result?

Whenever I give group assignments in class, there would be a polarisation of ethnic groups.

When I look out my window of my house, there is also polarisation of ethnic playgroups.

In our public schools, there is an all-Malay class (so executed because of one extra ‘Arabic’ subject) and an all non-Malay class (because of solving administration problems of Moral class).

I am pretty sure if someone were to observe the PLKN kids, the polarisation would in all probability exist.

If I have to give a grade for our previous political administration, it would certainly be an F.

If there was one thing that I learnt about years of reading and thinking architecture, it is a building never lies.

I can read the history of changing or unchanging cultural values and political intentions just by looking at the building’s design and planning layout.

And my current reading is that we have fallen from where Tunku Abdul Rahman left off.

Though we may seem richer in materials and facilities, but our spiritual self and muhibbah soul are at their utmost low.

So what is my architectural nation-building message? For housing and the city, let the glorious cacophony of the Melaka era rise once again.

Let us be ‘rojak’ and not pretend to like a standardised ‘coffee house cake’. Let us be pedas in our rojak but not to the level of causing gastrointestinal problems!

For our universities and administrative buildings, let us embrace again the Parliament house and the spirit of UKM or Jalan Gurney, where universalist tropicality rules.

Or if there is an urge for symbolism, let Dewan Jubli Intan of Johor pave a discourse on PostModern multicultural eclecticism.

Let us do away with the ethnic supremacist attitude in our national structures.

We are not one but we are many. Let all celebrate our strength in being Many Malaysia towards a common attitude of harmony and understanding.