Historian: Bok House important part of KL’s history
(article taken from the star online)

KUALA LUMPUR: Bok House might have been merely a rich man’s house, but the mansion still warranted conservation, said the Malaysian Institute of Architects.
Its president Dr Tan Loke Mun said the building was among several houses owned by the wealthy and formed the streetscape of Jalan Ampang.
He said such buildings should be preserved if the Government was serious about heritage tourism.
“There is nothing wrong with it being a rich man’s home. It shows the lifestyle of olden days,” he said yesterday in response to a statement by Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.
Bok House built by philanthropist Chua Cheng Bok which was demolished by KL City Hall on Dec 15 was considered by many as having heritage value.
However, on Thursday Dr Rais challenged dissenters to prove that Bok House was of historical value.
“If anyone can come forward and show the historic significance of the building, I would like to see him right in the eye,” said the minister.
He also described the building as “just a house belonging to a rich man.”
Dr Tan said PAM was willing to meet Dr Rais to discuss the Bok House issue and other historically significant buildings that should be preserved.
“We should do something before other buildings are destroyed” said Dr Tan who expressed disappointment that PAM was not consulted before Bok House was demolished.
Historian Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Khoo Kay Kim said the house was more than just a rich man’s house.
“The house was significant to KL history as well as the whole development of Ampang,” he said, adding that Ampang used to be home to the elite.
He said Bok House was built by someone who was synonymous with the development of Kuala Lumpur.
“Chua was the first to introduce a bus service to Kuala Lumpur before World War I. In fact, the rickshaw pullers of the city rioted because of the threat to their livelihood,” he said.
The Government, he said, should put a stop to demolition of historical buildings as they were part of history.
Heritage enthusiast Datin Halimah Mohd Said, howeve, agreed with Dr Rais that the house did not have any historical significance.
“Besides its architectural splendour, what historical value is there?” she said.



What is wrong with Malaysians? Yeah, apart from the house belonging to a rich man, these people apparently don't see the value in preserving heritage, and it's even more alarming when you get the minister of culture saying such rubbish statements, what more authority does anyone else have? It is alarming to know that we have such people in power. Was there a launch for investigation into the history of the house? Was there public consultation on the demolition of the house? Just because it's situated along Jalan Ampang and it sits on prime property, it doesn't mean that an old house needs to make way for 'modern' development, probably for some money-generating scheme. Obviously Malaysians have yet again failed to see the other side of development. I'm not saying all old buildings should be conserved, not like Singapore's Chinatown (but that has its own charm I must admit) , but perhaps Malaysians again have missed the point? I'm certain that there are deeper implications for it, just that nobody wants to voice it. Could it be because I am an architecture student and my course has taught me to value the old and welcome the modern yet the same? We're always looking for the shortest route to development, the fastest way to earn money, but have we forgotten that all these in fact takes time to mature. We are far from being mature society. Far from nations which have thousands of years to make mistakes and improve. I won't say that all developed nations are civilised, for the fact that they are termed developed based on certain criteria. I am just irked by our impatience and short-sightedness of the government, the lackadaisical attitude of the people and their ignorance towards the country.