Out with old, in with new. So short-sighted

Days after Phrae’s historic Bombay Burmah building was completely torn down, outraged local people fuelled public anger by sharing photos of the ruthless demolition on social media. Initially, the authorities tried to scapegoat the contractor. While I don’t think fault should be assigned to them, I am also sure the contractor did raze the building, without realising that the demolition of the 127-year-old structure would become such a controversial matter. They might have thought it would be just another demolition job on an old structure, the type of job they had done countless times before.

Nor did the Forest Department think it would be such a big deal, but local people proved them wrong.

Overnight, the loss of the colonial-style building escalated into a national scandal. In hot water were local and department officials, as well as the governor of Phrae province.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Varawut Silpa-archa also weighed in, defending his staff and claiming it was just a “de-construction” and all part of a restoration plan. Every piece would be brought back to life when the structure’s foundations were restored.

But his version of events has been challenged. Just a glance at the photos is enough to show it was simply the demolition of a structure that deserved preservation. The images of broken green wood stencil, shared on social media, were proof enough. It was clear that the contractor — or the Forest Department that hired the contractor — had from the outset absolutely no intention of keeping the heritage building.

This case shows that the authorities don’t appreciate the importance of cultural heritage, always preferring something new or modern.

In fact, Thai authorities are constantly tearing down historical structures and thus the country’s cultural heritage, destroying the very things that are the best drawcards for tourism. Instead, they command the construction of new structures — skywalks and observation towers which are mushrooming in several provinces — to attract tourists.

The idea of observation towers was first mooted more than 20 years ago by Banharn Silpa-archa, the father of Mr Varawut. The 123-metre Banharn-Jamsai tower in Suphan Buri, which was always intended to be a landmark, remains the country’s highest observation tower.

Now Nakhon Sawan boasts its own 32-metre tower, with the deck on top offering a panoramic view of the vast city, as well as neighbouring districts up to 10km away.

Si Sa Ket also has an 84-metre tower in the middle of the city’s lake, where visitors can enjoy views of the whole town.

Meanwhile, construction is nearly finished on Roi Et’s 105-metre tower, which has a unique design and resembles a musical instrument called a wote (northeastern flute). Betong, Kanchanaburi, and Loei are also promoting skywalks as tourism attractions.

Loei has been bragging about its glassfloored skywalk above Phu Khok Ngiew in Chiang Khan district, which cost 28 million baht. Standing right in front of a giant Buddha at the mouth of the province’s Hueang River, the skywalk is all of 80 metres high and offers visitors a glimpse of the meeting point of the Hueang and Mekong rivers.

Betong is about to complete Asean’s longest skywalk on a mountain, about 2,038 feet above sea level. The authorities want visitors to enjoy a bird’s eye view of the sea of fog. Do we really need a sky-high observation tower in the middle of nowhere? Regardless of their tawdry design, these towers that pierce the sky seem to be out of place. Functionality remains unclear. Do we really need a skywalk to enjoy a sea of fog if we are already on top of a mountain?

I always thought the purpose of an observation tower was to allow visitors to enjoy the skyline, not the roofs of small huts and vast areas of empty land.

Back to the ruined heritage house in Phrae. Last week, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha ordered that the Bombay Burmah building be rebuilt, with every detail back in place.

I don’t see the point in rebuilding what’s already been intentionally demolished. Once the original structure is destroyed, the meaning and the spirit of the heritage is gone. Reconstruction will only bring back the structure, not the soul.

If the Bombay Burmah house is to be rebuilt, the building should have a totally different form to remind us how we once ignored its heritage and culture. For example, the stencilled green wood decorations should not be neatly reassembled, but patched together so that traces of the destruction can still be seen.

The imperfect reconstruction would serve as a lesson to us all. It all relates to what we call conservation.