What can we learn from Kuala Lumpur?
Play
Earlier this month, I was invited to be a session chair at the "2014 International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments (IASTE)" conference, held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The conference theme “Whose Tradition?” convened more than 160 scholars to consider tradition’s relationship to development, utopia and myth.
To critically examine tradition, one must question what agencies and/or processes lie behind tradition’s construction or deconstruction. What and whose interests are hidden, and how are they revealed?
These questions are integral for scholars of architecture and urban studies in formulating new understandings of tradition and modernity.
The Petronas Twin Towers of Kuala Lumpur present an opportunity to examine questions of tradition in relation to modernity, identity and power in post-colonial nation-building, and the representation of a city and nation in the achievement of global ambitions.
According to Tim Bunnell’s 2005 work “Malaysia, Modernity, and the Multimedia Super Corridor”, then-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1992 announced the Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC), a city-centre project on the former colonial racecourse off Jalan Ampang.
The plans were part of “Vision 2020”, the government’s wide-reaching plan for Malaysian progress. The central part of the KLCC plan was the Petronas Twin Towers.
The Towers not only perform as a symbol of Malaysia’s economic development to a global audience; they also pronounce Melayu baru, or the “new Malay”, an informal code of conduct guiding Malaysians through global urban spaces.
The Towers were designed by Cesar Pelli & Associates and, upon completion in 1996, were recorded as the world’s tallest building at that time.
The project was acclaimed for the design integration of Islamic symbolism, most evident in how the floor plan outlines an eight-pointed star of two interlocking squares. The project also includes functional spaces such as a surau, or prayer room, on the 43rd floor, connected by a sky bridge linking the two towers.
Islamic patterns are also incorporated into paving surfaces and ceiling designs.
The incorporation of Islamic symbolism into the design of the Towers was demonstrative of the KLCC’s priority to emphasise Islam in the identity of both Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia. This strategy triggered widespread public discontent because of it equation of Malaysian identity with Islamic identity.
The agenda was criticised as being too reductive and exclusionary, and for failing to capture the multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic identities within the Malaysian nation.
Oppositional narratives have emerged to counter the government’s “Islamicisation” of Kuala Lumpur. There has been a cultural revival of Hindu expressions of Tamil identity that dispels the vision of a universal Muslim Malaysia.
Lack of confidence in the state has also been articulated through complaints and concerns that the Towers have been responsible for worsening traffic congestion and heightening pollution levels.
What can we learn from Kuala Lumpur? Bangkok and Thailand are also a city and a nation of multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic communities.
Is it possible for us to commission architecture and public spaces that express “Thai-ness” in inclusive ways?
Pat Seeumpornroj, PhD Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University
