We have to put people first

WHEN I was small, there was a good nasi kandar stall in the Bayan Lepas old town in Penang. My dad used to take me there, and every time, I would ask for “tambah nasi” (extra rice). The nasi kandar stall occupied a rickety one-storey coffeeshop along the Bayan Lepas main road. In that same row were a few other single- and double-storey shophouses, including a beautiful double-storey pre-war townhouse.

If you wish to visit that nasi kandar shop now, you can’t. It disappeared many, many years ago. But that townhouse was only demolished quite recently. I do wish that building could have been preserved, but I also understand that it was a necessary sacrifice.

The townhouse was in the

path of the Bayan Lepas-Teluk

Kumbar flyover. Due to rapid development in Teluk Kumbar and Balik Pulau, the volume of traffic from Jalan Teluk Kumbar heading towards Jalan Bayan Lepas had increased exponentially, creating a huge bottleneck at the junction of Jalan Permatang Damar Laut. Before the flyover was completed, it was not unusual to be stuck at that junction for 45 minutes or more.

Nowadays motorists – including people who pride themselves on being very heritage conscious, I’m sure – have a smooth drive through Bayan Lepas town towards Teluk Kumbar, unaware of the sacrifice necessary to make that possible. The people of Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul and Balik Pulau can now enjoy better connectivity thanks to our willingness to make that sacrifice.

What wisdom is there in applying a blanket ban on the demolition of buildings that have surpassed a certain age? Do we preserve a building just because it is old? And why are we preoccupied with buildings, why not other stuff?

Space is finite. There just isn’t enough space for a city to grow if it keeps all its old buildings for no other reason than because they are old. But how do we decide what to keep and what to demolish?

If a building has particular significance, then there’s good reason to preserve it. Take Fort Cornwallis. The history of Penang is attached to it, so of course we would want to preserve it. If a historical event has taken place there, or a historical person stayed there, those are all reasons we want to keep a building.

What if there is nothing special that has happened at the building, and its only merit is its age? That should not be the reason for preservation, especially if there are many other similar buildings.

If a building has been left in ruins for a long time, we should find out why. What if it was abandoned because unpleasant incidents had taken place there, or scary things have been seen there, would we still be eager to preserve it? When it comes to grading old buildings, I believe we follow the practice developed in Britain. How much we adopt of British practice, I do not know. But I believe we grade listed buildings as follows, based on a paper presented by Dr A. Ghafar Ahmad of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Baru. First, this is what they do in Britain, I believe: For the purpose of statutory protection, listed buildings in Britain are classified into two grades. Grade I are buildings of outstanding national interest that would only be demolished by the greatest necessity; and Grade II buildings have special architectural or historic interest which have a good claim to survival. What seems apparent in the above definition is that being categorised as Grade 1 does not save a building from demolition, if the greatest necessity can be demonstrated to justify tearing it down. It only means that Grade I buildings have a greater chance of avoiding being demolished than Grade II. Both grades of building are accorded specific degrees of protection but both can be demolished. Again, this is for Britain. Based on that system, a three-tier grading system was established for Malaysia as follows. Grade I buildings have architectural excellence and are of historical importance. It is essential to the national interest that they be preserved. (Examples: the KL Railway Station and Administrative Buildings, Selangor Club, Sultan Abdul Samad Building and Jamek Mosque, all in in Kuala Lumpur; Porta de Santiago, St Paul’s Church, Stadthuys Building and Christ Church, all in Melaka.) Grade II buildings are of architectural and historical interest and value to the state. (Examples: the Johor Royal Museum and Penang Court Building in George Town.) Grade III buildings are of special character architecturally or historically. Such buildings are of either religious, cultural, or social interest or are examples of a particular culture and craftsmanship.

What I note here is that the grading does not specify that a building cannot be demolished. It only mentions the various degrees of heritage significance of buildings, to which we apply corresponding protection.

What is clear here is that to achieve Grade I, a building must be of national interest. For Grade II, it needs to exhibit architectural or historical interest. That means, it has to exhibit specific elements.

Who is it to judge that a building is Grade I, II or III? Is this not open to personal interpretation, leading towards unjustified categorisations of buildings? If the person sent to categorise buildings has a zeal for protection, would he or she be more likely to categorise a building that is otherwise Grade III to Grades I or II? Another appraiser who is more liberal might apply a Grade III status to a Grade II building.

I am keen to ensure that every old building with heritage or architectural merit has a chance to be preserved. However, my priority is and has always been to put the welfare of the people first. If demolishing a structure will allow the land to be redeveloped in ways that will bring about skilled employment, or outstanding products and services, should we stand in the path of demolition?

When faced with the dilemma of whether to preserve or to demolish, how do we move forward? The sensible approach to preservation should not be one of blind adherence to rigid rules (in fact, are those rules or guidelines?), but one that carefully evaluates needs and circumstances. If circumstance dictates that the people fare better that the land be redeveloped, then it should. If redevelopment brings about no significant merit, then we preserve.

A decision by the city to demolish an old building is not one that can be done in haste, but only after careful evaluation. Do we preserve the old shophouses in Bayan Lepas? As much as I want to preserve them, I am mindful that the flyover enhances the quality of life for people, especially those in Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul, Balik Pulau, people who too often don’t know how to voice their hardship. Those of us who have the knowledge should do the right thing for the people.

We should not keep every old building just because it is old. We need to strike a balance, and if what we do improves lives, we need the guts to make necessary sacrifices. TIMOTHY TYE Former council member of Penang Heritage Trust Penang

— Filepicv Balancing act: When do you preserve an old building and when do you deem that itis standing in the way of development that could benefit people in the neighbourhood?