THE MALAY WOODEN HOUSE ISSUES

PROBLEMS OR OBSTACLES ENCOUNTERED AND HOW
THEY WERE OVERCOME?

The traditional Malay house is undergoing many changes and is faced
with constant threats to its continued existence. Economic and socio-cultural
values promoted by modern development are making a strong impact on the
Malay houseforms. The status of the traditional Malay house is being lowered
and traditional Malay houseforms are being vulgarised and replaced by modern
houseforms. Appropriate local building materials and the coherent and
holistic design principles of the traditional Malay houseforms are being replaced
and disintegrated by modern influences.

 
While houseforms should change to fit the changing needs of the users,
modern changes in the Malay houseforms are disruptive and inappropriate
because such changes are often imposed from external sources and are not
understood by the local communities. These changes are often irrelevant to
and disregard local and socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions.

THE ISSUES OF WOODEN HOUSE

First, the Malaysian timber industry is heavily export-oriented. This has
affected the quality, quantity and cost of timber available for the local market.
The export-oriented timber industry has pushed up local timber prices and
since most of the high-quality timbers are exported, the local market is deprived
of high-quality hardwoods.
 
Secondly, restrictive, archaic and stringent building bylaws to control fires
have deterred the building of timber houses in the urban areas. The uniform
building bylaws which are based on stringent standards demand a high degree
of scientific treatment of the timber. Unless the timber used meets these requirements,
the house would be classified as a temporary dwelling.
While timber houses are considered a fire risk, it has been proven that
large timber beams actually perform better than steel or concrete in a strong
fire. Under intense heat, steel buckles and concrete crumbles, causing the
total collapse of a building. Timber, on the other hand, after initial ignition,
smoulders at a rate of around 0.6 mm per minute.
 
Thirdly, the discrimination against wooden structures in housing finance
and higher premiums for insurance have deterred many from building timber
houses. Insurance agents have been reported to charge 50% to 400% higher
than normal rates on insurance premiums for protection of timber buildings
against fire.

Lastly, the majority of architects in Malaysia have relatively little timber
technology know-how. This gap is not likely to be filled, given the present
difficulties resulting from restrictive building bylaws and the general prejudice
against timber houses.

Diminishing resources and skills
 
Diminishing resources for building the Malay house are another big problem.
Building materials, which were once freely available, have to be bought
at a very high cost today. Many materials, which in the past could be gathered
free from the environment, are no longer easily accessible because the natural
surroundings have been increasingly cleared for development projects and
agriculture. Attap, which was once the main roofing material for Malay houses,
is today becoming scarce. So too are bamboo, the nibong tree and other trees
which supply free timber for building the houses. Unless there are positive
steps to rehabilitate the resource base for appropriate local building materials,
one can foresee increasing dependence on modem materials in the building of
the Malay house.

The general lack of appreciation of the traditional Malay house by the
younger generation and the lack of rural labour are additional factors causing
the erosion of the traditional Malay house. The carpenters, wood-carvers, attapweavers
and other artisans involved in the building of the traditional Malay
houses are a dying breed. This trend is caused by the diminishing popularity
of the houses, inappropriate legislation and the lack of interest among the
young people in continuing in the trade.

The threat of building bylaws
 
Another threat looming over the traditional Malay house is the imposition
of.inappropriate building bylaws in the rural areas. In 1978, the Penang
State Government drafted laws to include the rural areas under the jurisdiction
of building bylaws which were formerly applicable only to the urban
areas.
 
The traditional Malay house is designed, managed and financed by the
user. It is built by the users and the village carpenters. But the building bylaws
extended to the rural areas require that formal building plans be drawn up and
approved by the local authorities before a house can be built or extended. The
building bylaws are made in relation to modern buildings in the urban areas
and are wholly unsuitable for the rural areas where traditional Malay houses
predominate.
 
The enforcement of such bylaws means that villagers wishing to build or
extend a Malay house would have to get building plans drawn up and approved.
Such plans will have to be prepared by registered architects, very few
of whom in Malaysia have any deep knowledge of traditional Malay houses.
In rural areas, most villagers cannot afford the expensive services of architects.
Besides, traditional Malay house users and carpenters do not build according
to plans but by experience. They are unable to read or follow formal
house plans. Consequently, commercial contractors from the urban areas have
to be employed to construct the houses according to plans. This completely
goes against the principle of the traditional Malay house where the user controls
the design and construction of the house.
 
Thus, the extension of the bylaws poses a serious threat not only to the
continued existence of the house in the future, but also to the existence of
traditional carpenters, craftsmen, attap-weavers and others involved in traditional-
Malay-house construction. The bylaws, in effect, will displace and replace
them with contractors, developers and professionals.
Such a development is most destructive because it erodes the important
housing contributions made by the users and the informal sectors. It was estimated
that three-quarters of construction in the developing countries take place
in the informal sector. According to another estimate by Constantin Doxiadis,
a famous Greek architect, only 4% of the world’s buildings had received any
input from trained architects.
 
Housing layout will also have to conform with the planning standards of
the bylaws. This means conforming to regular lot lines and clearances of houses
from the lot lines. This leads to regimented and monotonous rows of houses
typical of modern housing estates and government-built kampongs. This contrasts
with the unique informal housing layout in traditional villages.
 
Thus, the principles and rationale of the traditional Malay house - the
control of its design and construction by users; its addition system to suit the
user’s needs through time; its particular characteristics designed to suit the
culture and lifestyle of the user; self-help and mutual-help approaches of
housebuilding - are now threatened with complete ruin due simply to the
enforcement of a wholly inappropriate set of building bylaws. This, more
than anything else, reveals so clearly the complete lack of understanding and
appreciation among planners and architects of the traditional Malay house in
terms of utility, culture, climate and economics.