Themes of Classicality 27 Dec Compressed1

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/326346349
Themes of Classicality in the Malay Architectural Form: Principles from an

Aristocratic Realm
Article · July 2018
CITATION READS
1 4,076
7 authors, including:
Noor Hanita Abdul Majid Abdul Kadir

International Islamic University Malaysia Bangladesh Agricultural University
98 PUBLICATIONS 322 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 702 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Shireen Jahn Kassim

International Islamic University Malaysia
202 PUBLICATIONS 178 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Shireen Jahn Kassim on 01 February 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THEMES OF CLASSICALITY IN THE MALAY
ARCHITECTURAL FORM:
PRINCIPLES FROM AN ARISTOCRATIC REALM
Puteri Shireen Jahn Kassim,
[email protected]
Noor Hanita Abdul Majid,
Tengku Anis Qarihah Raja Abdul Kadir,
Kulliyyah Seni Bina dan Reka Bentuk Alam Sekitar,
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia,
NurulSyala Abdul Latip,
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia.
Published online: 1 January 2019
To cite: Puteri Shireen Jahn Kassim, Noor Hanita Abdul Majid, Tengku Anis Qarihah Raja Abdul
Kadir and Nurul Syala Abdul Latip. (2019). Themes of classicality in the Malay architectural form:
Principles from an aristocratic realm. Melayu: Jurnal Antarabangsa Dunia Melayu, 12(1), 27 ‒ 59.
Abstract
The term ‘“classical” in past South East Asian and Malay writings, architectural
discourse, cultural studies and urbanism has earlier related to a notion of ‘purity’ of
form related to and the traditional vocabulary and forms arising mainly from timber
constructions and, compositions. This article challenges these current definition by
linking the definition to an Aristocratic Realm, and argues that selected palaces and
mansions of the Malay world embody these universally understood principles, rules and
themes. Such rules of classicality, include a keen sense of symmetry, proportionality in
form, controlled decorative character and clean lines. This paper explores the frontages
and elevational character of these palaces and highlights the underlying themes as
reflections of ‘the assertive character of aristocratic classicality’ which heightened in
the context of evolvement of malay socio-polities which reflected in certain palatial
buildings and aristocratic houses of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The incursion of
colonial influences, had evolved hybrid forms, as the Malay socio-cultural landscape
underwent changes due to economic energies and new technologies. These palaces
reflect local architectural form which underwent changes in technology but essentially
held on to the essence of the Malay form. The language of the Malay ‘classical’ depict
© Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 2018. This work is licensed under the term of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) (http://creative commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
27
Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 27 1/9/19 4:44 PM

MELAYU: JURNAL ANTARABANGSA DUNIA MELAYU JILID 11 BIL. 1 JANUARI 2018
attributes of classicality’ and a ‘highly’ refined style, reflect certain timeless rules of
form. The evolution of these classical forms was occasionally ‘interrupted’ by colonial
elements and juxtaposed upon the original Malay characteristic forms.Though at
times, this had diluted its essence, it did not compromise it. The Malay elements which
survive the onslaught of modernity through colonialism, can be defined as key rules
of Malay architectural and urban character. These are argued as part of the same ‘tree’
of Malay architecture which absorbed colonial vocabulary yet belonging to the same
root, and genealogy.
Keywords: Malay Classical style, regionalism, hybridity, architectural tectonics,
South-East Asian architecture
INTRODUCTION
The epitome of Malay architectural style and language has conventionally been
discussed as works, and compositions arising from an aesthetic style made from
elements and forms of timber-based vernacular construction and craftsmanship. Mohd
Rasdi et al. (2005), Shuaib et al.,(2014), Halim and Hashim(1997), for example,
have usefully shared the compilation of valuable resources of Malay architecture
by highlighting the position of Masjid Kampung Laut as an ancient, but high point
of timber craftsmanship, reflecting a position of Malay antiquity within a region in
which ancient timber forms are ravages by climate and human hazards. Ghafar (2017)
highlighted the nature of Malay ‘classical’ kampung as potential sites for UNESCO
heritage status. By reviewing of traditional houses and palaces that reflect the high
artisanship of timber-based construction in the Malay Sultanates and settlements of the
past, Tajuddin (2005) focused on the contribution of such timber structures to the core
character of Malay architecture. Hasan and Nawawi (2014) in their detailed account
of the ancient form and construction of Masjid Kampung Laut, Nilam Puri, Kelantan,
also known to be Malaysia’s oldest mosque, relates the ‘Classical’ to the timber-forms
the Malay vernacular. Hasan and Nawawi (2014) remarks:
“The Kampung Laut Old Mosque contained all the classical elements of the
traditional Malay architecture, with elevated raised floor, three-layered roof and
carved supporting columns, which are all built using chengal hardwood timber.”
In all the above, the ‘Classical’ is not related to Classical in the western style of
form, but understood as something ancient, rooted, simple in form and comprising
of a simple hierarchy of formal elements. However , when construction digresses
from pure timber buildings, the connotations of the ‘Classical’ are then described as
28

THEMES OF CLASSICALITY IN THE MALAY ARCHITECTURAL FORM:PRINCIPLES FROM AN ARISTOCRATIC REALM
related to the ‘colonial’. Soe Ju et al. (2015), for example, terms the Malay houses
of Kampung Bahru as structures fused with Colonial ‘style’; hence producing a
style termed as ‘Malay Colonial’. Similarly any infusion of masonry is termed as
a ‘mongrelisation’ of the Malay original formal expression. The ‘Malay World’ is
a defined geographical area inhabited by peoples of Malay and share identifiable
notions about nature and life from the 11th century in the South East Asian region
which had embraced the Islamic faith. Though the Malays are related to the racial
stock such as the Minangkabauese, Achehese, Bugis, Banjarese, Mandailings and
later in Singapore the Orang Selat, Boyanese and Javanese, what unites them is
the essential characteristic of a shared culture and language and amongst them is
the architectural vernacular, which is often touted as being rooted in the age-old
traditions in timber construction and craftsmenship.
Yet a review of Malay palatial architecture, often demonstrates that palaces
range from a purely timber expressions to a hyrid language. Due to its associations
with the archetypical timber house, the palace as a typology is seen as a offshoot
of the traditional timber house. Yet by the 18th century with the onset of Colonial
influences to the region, palaces reflect the infusion of masonry elements, particularly
stylised elements of columns, capitals and arches with mouldings or cornices. Yet
these are often seen as the absorption of the ‘Colonial style’ or being influenced
by the Colonialist ,rather than a language grown from the natural evolution of
technology in the region and whose forms are related to the innovativeness of the
Malays. While one cannot deny that some palaces, particularly few of those in the
Straits Settlements took on the usurping of Colonial vocabulary undiscerningly into
traditional form, some of the hybrid palaces – fusion of timber and masonry - must
be seen as natural offshoot of the technological expressions of the time, linked to a
natural evolution of the Malay culture within the same structure of socio-political
system and civilisation. Kahn (2012) had aptly observed that the perception the the
origin of the Malay culture including its architecture having origins in the kampong
(village) is in fact, part of the projections, and consequences, of Colonial writings,
which saw racial compositions in spatial terms. Past writings by Colonialists about
the Malays had always been tinged with ‘spatial’ perception of its times, which depict
Malay life as centred on the idea of the ‘kampung’ . The kampungis always seen as
the origins or locus classicus of the Malay civilisation. Hence the ‘image’ of the
kampung house as the ‘classical’ origins had persisted till today. Yet in many studies,
Malays are originally seen as ‘urban’ and ‘maritime’ and in a recent study, Mikvic
(2016) and earlier, Andaya (2010) highlighted that South East Asian civilisations,
were in fact a concoction of traders and urban masonry centers at the heights of
29

its civilisations along the Straits of Melacca. Their cities and constructions have
displayed hybrid masonry types of typologies and urban design. Their populations
were more maritime and commercial, rather than sedentary and agricultural. At the
centre of these communities, is a public power structure which ensured the stability
and prosperity of a multicultural population. As these centres grew, the stylistic
forms of their public architecture and urban design had reflected hybridity, with
more masonry elements in their building traditions. Their structures are still infused
with a high level of refinement and skills of traditional artisans regarding timber
artisanship.
An alternative definition of ‘Classicality’ is one from the field of literature, and
relates to the advent of the influence of Islam and Islamic sources on the language,
which later became the lingua franca of the region. Reid (2004) summarises the
attributes of “Malayness” as perceived in the 16th century:
“In the 16th and 17th centuries, Malayness in maritime South East Asia retained
these two associations – a line of kingship acknowledging descent from Srivijaya
and Melaka or Pagaruyong (Minangkabau), and a commercial diaspora that retained
some of the customs, language and trade practices developed in the emporium of
Melaka. The kingship role was more prominent in the Melaka area than elsewhere.”
‘Classicality’ can thus be argued as a temporal attribute related to a kind of refined

level and epitome of civilisational practices, including its styles and symbols. As
society evolved, the realm of rationality and the ‘learned’ become heightened, and
thus leaders of the society including aristocracy become used to aesthetic stylings
that are essentially refinements and beauty. Thus classicality, in all evolving societies,
can be linked to a certain form of visual traits and connotation; that of a controlled
aesthetic approach, including the predominance of ‘clean’ lines, and the rule of
proportion in form, elements, spaces and building compositions.
Classicality as a style in the Western realm

A Classical style is often contrasted with its opposite anti-Classical position, which
the European West often associated with a nostalgic and romanticist position, later
known as “picturesque,” . This is often depicted visually as the rambling style of the
English countryside style. The picturesque style was linked to the more “organic”
and “emotional” approach of architects as contrasted to the more ‘composed’,
‘rationally-grounded’ Classical approach. A more modern definition or reference of
Classicality is as suggested by Eisenman(1984):
30

“Before this time, the ‘classical’ was taken to be either synonymous with ‘architecture’
conceived of as a continuous tradition from antiquity or, by the mid-nineteenth
century, a historicist style.’ This implies that architecture since the mid-fifteenth
century had often aspired to be a paradigm of the classic (italicised initially by the
author); it is timeless, meaningful, and real.”
Architecture that attempts to recover what is classic can thus be called “classical”.
The ‘Classic’, as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary, is “serving as a standard
of excellence”, characterised by “graceful design and simple tailored lines,” while
Cambridge dictionary has defined the meaning of the classic as “traditional in style
or form, or based on methods developed over a long period.” Classicality may
thus refer to formal archetypes that recur again and again as which are taken as
standard bearers of society. They often arise from an intention to create a ‘whole’
piece of architecture rather than grow organically. They are designed to have a visual
impact to the outsider. Classical architecture requires a visual approach, in which a
complete composition is conceptualised and composed for a particular visual impact
externally. This is contrasted with from the act of composing based on an additive or
more organic process, or merely adding on decorative effects. Hence the epitome of
Classicality, in Western architectural history, is the Parthenon, a temple which was
design to look a certain way and to have a maximum effect, including the effect of
‘entasis’ i.e. the bulging of columns to appear straight when viewed from afar. The
aim is for the highest visual impact, and which later, had influenced the Renaissance
and the Palladian development of the language.
Classical in the East Asian societies

It is argued that the lack of study of the stylistic disposition and public expression
as contained in the local palatial architecture, has created a vacuum in created a
resource for identity making in public architecture . As cities grow, large buildings
and monuments become the norm. A language to express their identities and frontages
needed and these have become filled with Western models including , modern
interpretations , translations, templates and images. Such monumental forms however
have previously derived from the region’s local skills, genius and artisanship. The
Malay aristocracy, though centred around the Sultanates, had amongst their kin, those
who were occupied with the interpretation and expression of Malay identity. Hence
palaces, and public spaces, long been the source of these refined forms . Though
the Malay world is a highly diverse region, many of these reflect certain universal
31

principles. Jahn Kassim et al.(2017) has attempted to define the Malay ‘regionalism’
i.e, is defined as the essences of the Malay language, when encountering the ‘other’
i.e. the tropical international style as it evolved through centuries till present day.
After 1957, the tropicalised International Style had predominated the local public
buildings, as these were seen as ‘progressive’ and ‘scientific’ and thus had contributed
to further erasing the memory of local tradition in city centres. The dominance of the
colonial mind-set had still prevailedt till today, and invade the imagination as these
forms of public architecture become linked with the idealisms of Independence.
Yet during its times, it was the interpretation of the ‘few’- anxious to follow the
‘times’ and concerned with the creation and image of “newness,”. During the 1960s ,
any semblance to the Malay style or tradition was seen as backward and regressive’.
However by the late 1970s. the lack of cultural sensitivities was felt and the trend
swung back to a search for cultural identity The late 1800s, is defined by many,
as the onset of colonial control in the region. However it can also be argued that
during this time, a Malay- Classical hybrid style emerged which elements that reflect
the emphasis on identity amidst change. These had evolved from an essentially
vernacular foundation towards reflecting the eternal and universal values of the
‘Classical’ - being themes that reflect what identiy meant in the public realm. Though
some of these buildings were mosques and reflect the Islamic eclectic style, it can
be argued that members of the aristocracy had each, to varied extent, attempted to
express a language of public architecture in the Malay world. What they produced,
was a style that can be argued as a reflection of what Scruton (1995) defined - the
language of the ‘Classical vernacular’, which are essentially expressions of the
creative arts within which is modern but within the vernacular at the same time. The
“classical” vernacular is linked to the emphasis with socio religious frameworks
and is differentiated from thought systems that have no religious roots. Scruton then
termed Modernism as the complete departure with tradition and linked an “age of
nihilism”.
THE 1800S, THE ARISTOCRACY, AND THE “CLASSICAL.”

At the heart of the traditional Malay world are the custodians of its culture, the
Malay Sultans and the Sultanate aristocracy. Gullick (1987) similarly notes that the
core of the Malay culture and practices of these rulers was due to
“...the justification for giving so much prominence to them is that they play a leading
part in their communities. By their office, they were men of influence, whose precept
and example had a widespread effect, especially in the upper class of Malay society,
32

which came into close contact with them and related their status to ties of kinship
with the royal dynasty, or the holding of court office. The rulers were also more
exposed than most of their subject to external influences. ..”
The ‘classicality’of Malay palaces of this time arose from a time in which modernity
and urbanisation reigned. These had produced the ‘hybridity’ or combination of
timber-masonry language. In the visualisation of typical Melaka architecture as seen
in the lithographs of the sixteenth-century city of Melaka. Before the colonisation by
the Portuguese in 1511, Malacca was an urban city whose structures were masonry
and timber. The urban forms exhibited a combination of timber, typically in roof
forms and masonry language and construction, as seen in the lithographs of 1509 of
de Sequeira (Figure 1) and visualisation of guards’ house (Figure 2). It can be seen
that Malacca, as a classical Malay civilisation and culture of the fifteenth century,
was a timber-hybrid civilisation.
The Colonialist influences were a form of ‘modernist’ influences as described by
Amoroso (2014) as “the intrusion of the industrialised world seeking raw materials,
Figure 1: Melaka 1509: from Portuguese sources, lithograph the arrival of Diego Lopes de
Sequeira.
(from M. L. Dames (ed.), The Book of Duarte Barbosa, Hakluyt Society, London, 1918)
33

Figure 2: Visualisation of what the building of the “left” could look like architecture is masonry and
timber with the Malay-Chinese roof (Sources: authors’ visualisation)
areas of investment, and free trade.” In later years, the more aggressive diffusion and
control of Colonialists emerged. From the key outposts of Straits Settlements such as
Penang, Melaka, and Singapore, the Colonialists extended their foothold in Malaya
and Sumatera and matched their expansionist agenda with the rate of development
including the expression of public buildings in their style. The change was driven
by the need to protect their commercial interests which began through protectorate
and concession agreements with the local rulers. To ensure the enhancement of trade
and safety of transactions, agreements were made with the ruling class, who saw
the Colonials as an ally and source of protection against recurring attacks by, or the
antagonism of neighbouring powers. Amoroso (2014) summates, about Malaysia,
how the British saw that the maintenance of particular symbolic regalia, including
architectural style, were part of parcel of extending their rule through the existing
power structures. Certain traditional symbolism, iconography and structures were
key to their continued presence, and which must be preserved.
Gullick (1987) provides another summary and insight into the times:
“The nineteenth century appears to have been the large age of unchanging stability
and the twentieth century mars the beginning of accelerating processes of social
34

change which continue own to modern times. The end of an epoch and the beginning
of another cannot be dated precisely, but one can recognise that say by 1920, age had
ended, and another had begun.”
The case studies selected in this study, display hybridity that is characteristic
of the changing times, and such hybridities in architectural expression are crucial
and part of the definition and characteristic of a form of ‘Classicality’, they contain
recurring rational principles yet vary according to the characteristic of a location or
place. By ‘place’ or ‘region’, one does not mean “nation” as defined geographically
today, but rather the Malay polities of this era and a past. Not only were the cases built
at the height of an era of tradition, but they were also the monumental expressions
of such local streams of knowledge and genius. They stem and grew from the local
vernacular archetype, yet they contain a ‘Classical’ archetype which its rules.
Distinctive aesthetic additions and stylisations include ornamentation and the
refined use of complex decorative motifs are symbols of such styles and often
expressed in the ‘edges’ of such forms, i.e. adorning the eaves, fascia boards, and
finials, like decorative ‘lace’ adorning a dress or clothes of a person. In architecture,
these motifs draw their inspired patterns from the surrounding flora and fauna,
instantly reflecting the closeness between the building and the spirit of the artisans.
Palaces, as in the words of Andaya (2010), are a reflection of the social structure of
the Malay world and its socio-cultural system. It reflects a hierarchy and systemic
power in its layout, architecture, and these manifest in outward physical forms. Hence
such hierarchical form displays the ‘galactic’ forms of Malay polities, containing
aristocratic power centres, structures for their extended families, which encircle the
central place of the ruler. As the monarchs, rulers built palaces as the key custodians
of their culture. In many cases, there are the extended and refined versions of the
Malay palace and aristocratic houses that reflect the highest form of technology and
craftsmanship available in the locality.
TRACING GENEALOGIES
It is thus crucial that the Malay genealogy of architecture be reconstructed and these
includes the stylisations which is different from the Colonial position. Chang (2016)
outlines the stylistic themes of Colonial styles include the tropical style, which is
different from what is briefly calls the local ‘Malay style.’ The Malaysian colonial
style and its roots are a Neo-classical or Victorian architecture were part of the
diffusion of Imperial power through the era and has evolved through the nation’s
climate. The manifestation of elements such as the tropical colonnade or veranda is
35

seen in the mansions of Penang and Melaka. The elements reflect the language of the
passive and bioclimatic architecture of tropicalized Colonial style, which focused
mainly on the Western view of tropical, which culminated in the tropical nation of
the international style. These idyllic visions of the tropical Colonial style evolved
naturally into the modernist outcome or part of the language of tropicalizing the
Modernist ‘box’. In modern times, such a language is represented as mere louvres or
the louvred projections over glass boxes; it implies a continual Colonial mindset that
tropicalized International architecture through the discourses of the AA (Architectural
Association) tropical school, in the writings of Koenigsberger, Maxwell and Jane
Drew.
With reference to Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia, Chang (2016) summated
that an urban ‘tropical’ that has been dominating the language of cities was derived
from (1) the tropicalization of past Colonial legacies and (2) a form of technoscience,
whilst referring to the ‘sciences’ of tropical as associated with Koenigsberger and the
tropical school.This timber-masonry hybrid language must be differentiated from
the Colonial language. The latter is described by Chang (2016) as beginning with
the Colonial architecture of the bungalow, and reflecting the tropical of the Fast East
region, and tracing through its genealogical seed or source. The sources include the
tropical Colonial bungalow, the tropical Military Barracks, pavilion-type hospitals,
and later large public buildings. In Malaysia, the Palladian-style bungalow is perhaps
the seed of a whole spectrum of tropicalized Classical language in urban buildings.
This style, which included the extension of verandas and porticos, was the symbolic
form of Colonial lifestyle and East Indies and became a cultural form in itself.
The Malay style is thus a specific style - the abundant use of columns,
pitched roofs, naturally ventilated porticos, louvres, tall windows, adornment of
roof finials, and decorative panels, amongst others. . The palace is typically a
large house with an enhanced portico, and the general monuments were imbued
with a ceremonial character of the structures. These forms were later recognised
as aristocratic complexes and thus, reflected the apotheosis of the Malay
vernacular. They have become the identity of Malay urbanism and can be seen
not only on facades and frontages but also in the public spaces and walkways.
Although some bear traces of Colonial influences and syncretism, they hold
the capacity as part of the language, which has absorbed global influences to
become expressive symbols, and quasi-urban forms. Malay settlements and its
palatial cores have constituted overlapping ‘civilisations’ across time that has been
described as dynamically changing ‘galactic’ forms (Andaya, 2010) through out the
time. This became an expression of hybridity which is also a form of ‘Classicality
36

because it’s derived from the ingenuity of the Malay social structure, imbued with
local craftsmanship and local motifs. Abdul Halim Nasir (1987);
“The beautiful carvings produced at the palace are associated with the status symbol
of an administration and indirectly had accorded recognition to the art of traditional
Malay woodcarving under this system.”
It reflects local resources and the skills of their societies and the derivative of local
socio-political systems. In the words of Andaya (2010, p: 80);
“A simple arrangement prevailed in the Malayu areas, with a Malayu kingdom
consisting of a sultan with many of his residing close to the royal residence, and other
family networks headed by powerful officials or chiefs with their constituencies. The
boundaries of these Malayu polities were never stable because they expanded and
contracted by the movement of their subjects.”
CASE STUDIES AND THE REGION

The following cases are linked to the Malay Sultanates in Sumatera and Malaysia,
and which arose from ancient lineages, such as Perak and Kedah Sultanates, and
to the Sumatran side are locations such as Langkat, Deli, and Batu Bara. The case
studies are derived from the late 1800s and 1920s. The cases were focused on the
loci of a Malay-Nusantara region taken as encompassing Sumatera, Malaysia, South
Thailand, and the eastern part of Java, Borneo, South Philippines, South Vietnam,
and South Thailand. It is linked to what Andaya (2010) defines as the heterogeneous
nation of the Malay region:
“Throughout this study, I have decided to retain the Malay word and spelling
‘Malayu’ to refer to the Malays in preference to the current usage of ‘Melayu’.
The former was the way the name was more commonly transcribed in inscriptions
and early documents, by using ‘Malayu’ i am including not only those in Malaysia
but also those living in various parts of Indonesia, particularly on the east coast of
Sumatra and the offshore islands to the south of the Malay Peninsula.”
DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDIES
The Palace of Lima Laras, Batu Bara, Sumatera

The Palace of Lima Laras (Figure 3) is located in the village of Lima Laras, district
of Tanjung Tiram, in Batu Bara. The palace was built in 1907 and completed in
1912. The Batu Bara settlement grew from the confluence of two rivers. Hence its
economy grew from trade rather than from agriculture or concessions. Its location
37

Figure 3: Istana Lima Liras, Batu Bara, Sumatera
was a strategic trade route between Riau, neighbouring states, and Malacca like
the Langkat palace. This palace is symmetrical and balanced in form, with exact
proportions across both sides of an axis. Yet it recalls the essentially timber
expression of the Malay world with its many columns, some of which is moulded
in masonry pillars, giving the whole structure a rhythmic, lighter, more open-air
ambience. The mansion also reflects the essentially Malay language of open-style
porticos that extend from left and right, and the space that extends to the back are
for more private functions. There are four open-air verandahs like platforms, each
facing the four cardinal directions.
The palace has five floors, with the ground floor servicing the house and in the
past, housing the army and prisoners. The first floor was a large ‘anjung’ a meeting
and welcoming space for the administrators of the state. Formerly called “Palace
of Intention,” the building was said to mirror a front of a ship which was perhaps
the intention of the builder, who was active in sea trade, during a time the Dutch
practised non-interventionist policy and recognised the political administration of
Mohammad Yoda and its dynasty.
Istana Langkat, Tanjung Pura, Sumatera

Langkat is one of East Sumatera’s oldest Sultanate or kingdom. It was relatively
unknown until the opening of rubber plantations and discovery of oil in Pangkalan
Brandan. It is also known in the present day for its contributions to refined Malay
literature. The palace of Istana Langkat (Figure 4) was built in 1921. Its form is also
axial and symmetrical yet it is capped by a layered pinnacle , at times, interpreted
as part of the spiritual expression of the region. Elementally it constitutes a hybrid
38

Figure 4: The Palace of Langkat - elevation showing the Hybrid language of a Classical palace
(source: authors visualisation)
form of timber masonry that is firmly based on the vernacular of the region. Its local
character dominates through the use of roof finials, tall openable shuttered window,
and an open ground floor built in a stately masonry whitewashed structure on the
ground floor. This combination results in a stunning contrast of colours and forms.
The principal timber palace is ornamented with delicate motifs with elements of
the serambi (extended to the front), anjung (extended to the sides), large openable
windows, and an open-air collonaded ground floor (Figure 5). Its roof recalls the
Figure 5: The Langkat of Palace at Tanjung Pura built by Sultan Abdul Aziz (1900).
(Source: Digital Archives, University of Leiden)
39

typical bumbong panjang roof that is inserted with a multi-tiered roof, which recalls
the Javanese counterpart and its layered forms of tropical roofs.
Istana Indragiri, Rengas Sumatera

Istana Indragiri was built in the 1920s in Rengat, Sumatera. Its name is derived
from the Sanskrit of India, which means palace, and giri, which means a high
status or country. The present palace is a renovated version. Its form is symterical,
proportion and majestic and depicts a peristyle form of architecture, with wide
verandahs and collonades. During its time the palace was the seat of the State of
Indragiri Kingdom at the time of Raja Iskandar, whose surname was Narasinga I.
(Refer Figure 6):
Compared to Istana Langkat and Istana Lima Liras, the masonry core of
the Indragiri palace is surrounded by a colonnade of columns. As discussed by
TengkuAnis etl. (2017), the peristyle form represents one of the five generic forms
of palaces that abound and which recur across the Malay Sultanates generally
before the early 1900s. These forms reflect the essential archetypes through what
is known as a diverse region, yet each reflect a sense of symmetry and degree
of formal rules. These forms commonly have the Malay features of embellished
components that visually elevate these utilitarian structure into refined expressions
and even urban counterparts.
Figure 6: Replica of Istana Indragiri, Danau Raja, Kota Rengat

Source:https://lancangkuning.com/post/175/wisata-sejarah-ke-5-istana-kerajaan-melayu-
di-bumi-lancang-kuning.html)
40

The Balai Besar, Alor Setar, Malaysia

Kedah is one of Malaysia’s oldest Sultanates and polities. Its palatial complex is
located in the midst of its capital Alor Setar. The Balai Besar or Royal Audience hall
of Alor Setar Kedah in its present form is an evolution from pure timber to a timber-
masonry-cast iron hybrid. Decoratively, it reflects the expressions of Malay-Siamese
elements and absorption of Colonial influences, yet still retains the essence of Malay
form: fusing timber, masonry, and the technology of cast iron. The complex was
built by Sultan Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Abidin Shah (1710‒1760), the first Sultan
of Kedah, and is sometimes known as “Balai Penghadapan” (Grand Audience Hall).
Located in front of the “Istana Pelamin,”this heritage structure has witnessed a series
of events that marked the history of Kedah and Alor Setar.
The original structure of Balai Besar was completed in 1735 (Wan Shamsudin
bin Mohd Yusof, 2007), and since then, Balai Besar has faced several attacks from
foreign forces. The first attack was by the Siamese for the reason that Kedah delayed
the delivery of “Bunga Emas” to Bangkok in 1767.In 1986, the Balai Besar was
renovated with the infusion of an eclectic mix of Malay, Javanese, Thai, and Colonial
influences. Its final form became a hybrid between Greek pillars, Flat Renaissance
arches, sweeping Viennese staircase, and a Malay/Thai roof. The Siamese had close
relations with Kedah during this era through political and cultural ties. Colour
schemes of yellow and green recall varnished roofing tiles of palaces and temples of
Siam, with slender columns reaching a height of over nine meters, and with openwork
at the joint between the roof and column.
The Audience Hall is another symmetrical and axial semi-outdoor area which
resonate universal Classical proportions yet manages to still capture the localised
essence of a serambi form or the anjung reminiscing the simple Malay house. The
recurring feature of the Malay palace is that it is a heightened and amplified version
of the archetypical vernacular structure of the Malay house. In each case, slender
columns are maintained and recall the simple vernacular house composed of stilts,
various lintel structures, and a pitched roof. Although the palace is embellished, it is
surmounted by a simple bumbung panjang roof, which shelters the audience hall yet
allow natural ventilation. The roof is organised in different heights and ornamented
with intricate pinnacles and awan larat, which creates an eye-catching visual form.
The columns were further localised and decorated with types of local flora such as
Bunga sulor paku and Kayu berlurah buah gelugor (Table 1).
There are also Corinthian-like columns further into the building although they are
not apparent from the frontal elevation. The columns on the ground floor are shaped
41

Table 1: The range of Malay embellishments in the Audience Hall of Kedah, recalling
varied motifs used in localising the Palatial language – Balai Besar, AlorSetar (Source:
Fadzidah Abdullah et al. 2005 , IIUM KAED Heritage Lab, IIUM)
NO. PATTERN OF MOTIF NAME OF THE MOTIF

1.
KERAWANG PAPAN
DEPAN BALAI BESAR
2.
AWAN LARAT
3.
BUNGA TAMPUK
MANGGIS
4.
MOTIF JERAJAK
5.
MOTIF SELEMBAYUNG
42

sambungan Table 1: The range of Malay embellishments in the Audience Hall of Kedah,
recalling varied motifs used in localising the Palatial language – Balai Besar, AlorSetar
(Source: Fadzidah Abdullah et al. 2005 , IIUM KAED Heritage Lab, IIUM)
6.
BUNGA TERKUKUR
7.
KERAWANG SULUR
BAYANG
8.
BUNGA TERUNG
9.
MOTIF FLORAL
10.
KERAWANG TANGGA
BALAI BESAR
43

sambungan Table 1: The range of Malay embellishments in the Audience Hall of Kedah,
recalling varied motifs used in localising the Palatial language – Balai Besar, AlorSetar
(Source: Fadzidah Abdullah et al. 2005 , IIUM KAED Heritage Lab, IIUM)
11.
BUNGA SULUR PAKU 2
12.
MOTIF BRACKET
ENHANCED
13.
BUNGA SULUR PAKU 1
14.
SILANG GUNTING
15.
ELEMEN KALIGRAF
44

like Kayu berlurah buah gelugor are 16 in total and decorated with Bunga sulor
paku on the top of them. Capitols of the columns on the upper floor are decorated
with the Malay sailor paku motif consisting of a single motif shoot of fern. The eight
pieces of the fern motif carved from wood are secured to the plain capitol with two
nails each based on the octagonal cross-section of each column. Internally, there is
chandelier reflecting a Bunga terong at its base.
Externally, the columns are decorated by brackets based on triangular forms,
which reflect a ‘sulor-paku’ like the floral pattern. Other than that, there is an
‘architrave’-like element which functions as a supporting system between the
frontal columns and has three layers of awan larat. Other motifs such as ‘silang
gunting’ and ‘jerejak’ are designed with exquisite detail and can be viewed
externally.
Baitul Rahmah (1905) and Baitun Anwar (1912)

Sultan Idris, the late 1800s monarch of Perak’s, first son, Raja Harun Al-Rashid. Raja
Harun Al- Rashid married his first wife Cik Rahmah Binti Ngah Ahmad, and built a
house called Baitul Rahmah, in 1915 to tribute her name. Later he designed for the
second wife, Cik Sarah, and built Baitul Aman; the house has its possibility built in
the same year of Baitul Rahmah and named after their son, Raja Aman Shah. The
Baitul Rahmah mansion (Figure 7) is a form of ‘dual-symmetry’ and is essentially
a Malay royal mansion located near the compound of the main palace in Kuala
Kangsar, Perak. It has a symmetrical “double” extended portico or verandah which
is a variant of the anjung or verandah. The portico unites elements of roof finials and
decorative panels with the columnar nature of the form, and these are embellished
by woodcarving inspired by the character of honey bees. The capitals of the columns
are decorated with woodcarving of the kerawang motif (Figure 14).
In 1912, he constructed Baitul Anwar named after his first son, Raja Anor
Shah with his third wife, Raja Mentera @ Raja Zubaidah Binti Raja Sir Chulan.
Raja Mentera is the lineage of royal family and daughter in law of Sultan Idris
Murshidul’ Adzam Shah. Sultan Idris Murshidul ’Adzam Shah married the second
wife, Tengku Pemaisuri Che Uteh Mariah Binti Haji Sulaiman, and had their first
son named Raja Harun Al-Rashid. Raja Harun Al- Rashid married his first wife
Cik Rahmah Ngah Ahmad, and built the house called Baitul Rahmah in 1915 to
tribute her name. Later he designed and built Baitul Aman for the second wife, Cik
Sarah; the house has its possibility built in the same year of Baitul Rahmah and
named after their son, Raja Aman Shah.
45

In the Baitul Rahmah, the Malay mortise and tenon technique can still be seen
in the connections of beams and timber column, yet these combined with the brick
footing, shaped and arranged to form like a stepped pedestal. The footing laid to
half of the wall height. It surfaces finished with decorated plaster cornice detail that
influenced colonial style. Timber post integrated into the brick footing and secured
with a wedge on a brick footing at the centre. The language is the “half-column”
height and is either columns or a continuous masonry base. The expression itself
is a refined form of the timber Malay house on its concrete footing. The language
is made up of a masonry pedestal base in about half the height of the full ground
floor, combined with a full floor of timber architecture as in Baitul Anwar (Figure
8) and Baitul Rahmah (Figure 7). The base is stylised with stepped moulding and
constitutes a base from which the columnar structure and structure of the building
rise.
Figure 7: Baitul Rahmah, Kuala Kangsar: A hybrid masonry plinth and column base fused
with timber columns, portico, side balconies, and decorative eaves
46

Figure 8: Elevation of Baitul Anwar, Kuala Kangsar

Sources: Noorhanita Abdul Majid and Heritage Lab, KAED, IIUM
THE TIMELESSNESS OF THE MALAY FORM

Apart from the universal principles of Classicism, the timelessness of the Malay
style can be related to other theories of architecture. Semper (1820) theorised another
framework from the origins of architecture by condensing architectural forms into
what he calls “the four elements of architecture.” He had observed that the Carribean
hut (the plinth or earthwork, hearth, the frame, and the enclosure) are present in all
forms of architecture. These fundamental elements can describe any “language” of
architecture, and Semper observes that the language is almost always associated with
lightweight, linear components, and the stereotomic as a form of massive earthwork
constructions. It is this classicality that is timeless and universal that can be used
to describe the elements of aristocratic Malay architectural style and its motifs. As
Semper reflects,
“The product of human artistic skill, not with its utilitarian aspect but solely with
that part that reveals a conscious attempt by the artisan to express cosmic laws and
cosmic order when moulding the material.”
Semper (1820) goes further by implying that the above principles arise from the
tectonic rather than from the symbolic, which aptly defines the Malay expressive
language and composition as arising from the constructed act that has been imagined
47

as a mere form and symbol. The building in the Malay is inherently linked to artisan as
an expression of its context. However, by the stereotomic, Semper (1820) means that
an architectural expression is also a form of “earthwork formed out of the repetitious
stacking of heavy-weight units.” Semper then relates the stereotomic mass as an
extension of earth that provides the tectonic a base to ascend from. The stereotomic
element is more closely associated with creating volume, and the tectonic is an
open frame. Semper then suggests that it is the transition between the tectonic and
stereotomic that the language of architecture exists within and in that moment “the
very essence of architecture becomes a physical manifestation.”
Hence, rather than merely focusing on timber artisanship as the epitome of
Malay architecture, one can read the hybrid forms of the aristocratic in the late
Colonial period as a kind of apotheosis of Malay civilisation before it gave way
to foreign dominance. This is an argument that can give an alternate reading of
Malay architecture and its evolution in the region. Frampton (1995), in his studies in
Tectonic Culture, similarly recognises the use of Semperian theories in explaining
the principles of architecture in both the Western and the Eastern worlds. The
tectonic and the stereotonic can be aligned to discuss and articulate the nature of the
Malay Classical form and the significance of this theoretical framework in deriving
an identity amidst globalisation. He relates that this is another approach in producing
expressiveness within the act of construction to architecture‒the importance of the
“tectonic” in critical regionalism. He addresses the tectonic as the play of heaviness
and lightness and the sky that reflects the style of Malay architectural Classicality.
When Frampton discusses the stereotomic, he refers to the heaviness and weight of
its presence and its connection to the earth, mainly by linking the principles to the
elements of the Malay aristocratic language:
“The human experience is somewhere in between the earth and sky; a tension exists
between the two materials which embody opposites.”
Frampton asserts that Semper’s theory separates the “tectonic and stereotomic” and
as such the building can now be discussed as “mass and skin” or “mass and frame.”
He illustrates that the inherent meaning of architecture can be read, and it evolves
through this physical manifestation.
Thus the presenting of work is inseparable from the manner of its foundation on the
ground and the ascendancy of its structure through the interplay of support, span,
seam and joint – the rhythm of its revetment and the modulation of its fenestration. A
buildings connection to the earth is just as important as its physical presence above
48

the earth. Buildings acquire meaning through their act of building from the ground
up, articulating a connection to both the earth and sky, heaviness and lightness.
Frampton’s theoretical frameworks of the tectonic and stereotonic elements

of language are used to discuss the partner’s forms which demonstrate different
dominance and combination of timber and masonry. In these early palaces, both
masonry elements and timber tectonics are fused into a vibrant contrast and hybrid.
It is argued that some of the later build Malay palaces and mansion had absorbed
the Colonial style to the point that the only language and variations in archetypical
style are the roof and its finials and fascias. These were retained to reflect the delicate
nature of Malay culture, which is the inherent delicacy of Malay aesthetic sense and
elements.
Recurring elements of the Classical Malay Form and Language

The recurring elements across the Classical forms include a columnar nature of
space (Figure 9 below) characterised by relatively slender columns, the use of roof
finials and decorative eaves, the use of brackets in connections are present in all case
studies. These elements are typically infused in the column-pedestal hybrid systems
Figure 9: Balai Besar, AlorSetar: Elevation showing the projecting portico with ground
floor open space
49

and used the ventilated panels as architraves, transoms, and decorative fanlights, the
balustrade and long-shuttered windows. The following Table 1.0 describes the ten
common elements that can be then related to key expressions of Malay Classical
identity.
An architecture that recalls Classicality in the Malay world have the recurring
elements as compiled in Table 2. Such elements recur across cases from different
regions, and can be expressed as variants of generic forms. In terms of composition,
such as in Figure 7 and 8, both Baitul Rahmah and Balai Besar mansions, though
different in scales, recall the majority of the essential elements such as having
column-pedestal systems, exhibiting the use of decorative brackets, the use of slender
columns, the localisation of any features with Malay motifs, roof finials, the use of
decorative balustrades, and the use of decorative architraves. In the case of Baitul
Rahmah, the architrave was situated above the lattice archway (Figure 10), whereas
Balai Besar took the form of awan larat panels (Figure 11). Both have variations in
their roof finials.
Figure 10: The roof finial-eave, architrave and bracket language of Baitul Rahmah.
50

Figure 11: The Istana Hulu: the Malay language is only in the roof form and vocabulary
The ‘Colonial’ root in Language

In later years, i.e. early 1900s, in certain states, the influence of the Colonial style
predominates. Many of these palaces were located in the centres within the Federated
Malay States closer to Colonial influence and control. The capping of roof finials
and ornamental eaves reflect how their functional elements became symbolic and
aesthetic. The symbol and representation are, however, in detail rather than in the
overall form. Such can be seen in the palaces of Istana Hulu, Kuala Kangsar ( Figure
11) and Istana Bandar, Selangor, yet there are essentially classical Malay elements
such as the decorative roof eaves.
Istana Hulu can be argued as a Colonial form , yet infused with elements of a
Classical Malay language. This can also be seen in the columns with pedestals that
are fused with the masonry mass of the palace. The columns are now pilasters and
finials appear on the roofs that capped the form. Both Istana Hulu and Istana Bandar
exhibit an eclectic style in which some details are Classical Malay, yet the overall
language Colonial. In Istana Bandar, the element of “kekisi” or balustrade is fused
into the form. Both still exhibit key vernacular elements such as decorative fascia
board, papan manis, tunjuk langit, and the Malay pitch roof.
51

Figure 12: Malay language in Istana Bandar, Klang
“Colonial- Malay”, “Classical Malay” and “Vernacular Malay”

The different and position of the essentially Colonial style, with the variants of the
Malay style can be seen in Table 2 . This compares 4 case studies from the same
region or settlement yet which demonstrate the different stylisations which are based
on different roots and variation. As indicated, the table compares the range of styles
and position of hybridity in the 1800s and 1900s in Malaysia. Though the buildings
are of similar function, spatial complexity, and scale, yet they grew from different
roots and hence different styles. In Istana Gahara, Kuala Kangsar, though the overall
form is surmounted by a Malay roof, it is essentially Colonial. In Rumah Meor, the
language is the vernacular which reflects an essentially utilitarian “vernacular” style
which is essentially less symbolic and more functional in terms of grammar, while in
Baitul Rahmah and Baitul Anwar, the language is essentially rooted in the Classical
vernacular of the Malay style.
CONCLUSION
The late 1800s and early 1900s was a time the Malay region was open to external
influences, yet was at the threshold of momentous changes. The aristocracy, due the
52

Table.2. A compilation of the hybrid elements of the Malay “Classical” style
Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 53

1/9/19 4:44 PM
Table 2: A comparison between the language of Istana Gahara, BaitulRahmah, Baitul Anwar and RumahMeor; all located
in Kuala Kangsar.
ISTANA GAHARA BAITUL RAHMAH ISTANA ANWAR RUMAH MEOR
Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 54

Division of the house
Asymmetrical No ‘anjung’ Symmetrical Double ‘anjung’ Symmetrical Double ‘anjung’ Asymmetrical Side ‘anjung’.
Consists of three building: Main and central staircase Consist and central staircase Consist Consists of one building: Main
house (Front house)-Colonial of two buildings: Main house of two buildings: Main house house-Timber buildingon stilts
based (Front House)-Double storey (FRont House)-Double storey Selang
-Main house (Rear house)- timber timber Kitchen
double storey timber Selang Selang
-Servent’s house-single storey Kitchen-single storey Kitchen- single storey
Building style and position
-An essentially Colonial style An Essentialy Malay Classical A Classical style whichhas a - a representative of Vernacular
with minimum Malay influnce in house has two anjung which central anjung with a central architecture of Perak style
the details is different from the vernacular staircase and balconies/ (bumbung limas Perak)
-The house features advance house of Perak - Malay sotoh on both sides. which recalls more organic
sanitary and sewerage systems classical style - The rich wood composition and arise from
at that time compared to others. carving can be seen at the the essentially forms of
-Use load-bearing structure featured balconies, fascia timber building on stilts with
system with steel I-beam board, railings and ventilation ornamentations that is common
-double classical coloum wiyh grilles. to vernacular style of Perak.
pediment details
1/9/19 4:44 PM
position of power, were the initiators and the custodian at the same time. Hence one
of the first to be faced with, or to absorb, the onslaught of drastic changes from such
global developments in industrialisation and technology are the palatial archetypes.
There are the timber-masonry stylisations of the Malay world which is defined as a
‘Classic’ style’ due to the heightened level of refinements and visual compositions
in architecture that reflect a certain degree of aesthetic sense, urban life, economic
prosperity, and cosmopolitanism. These developments converged into a tendency
that can be described as a specific style, and such stylisations are also observed from
other regions are faced with the first onset of modernisation. These cases were not
merely “copying ” external forms or merely “transmuting” timber artisanship, but
were earnest and novel efforts to instigate a new form yet defend the culture at the
same time, and to represent resistance by transmuting such cultural values into new
forms of architecture hybrids that arise from new methods and materials. To fully
appreciate the evolvement of Malay architectural language, one must analyse its
evolution from the earliest era to its last and final phase before independence eras,
and this includes a period when it was able to innovate yet withstand the tumultuous
changes in the context of the presssure of powers in the global era. The remnant
of such a defence in light of such strong forces must be studied, and such new
forms appreciated and yet be retraced to its roots, which not only emerge from “the
vernacular,” but also which had evolved into the refined ‘Classical’. In this way,
the Classical becomes the standard bearer of a local style which is roted a ‘theory
of origins’ and which can constitute a basis of identity that can arrest the lost of a
cultural expression in a rapidly disappearing identity of Asian cities.
Aristocratic architecture is always a reflection of ‘permanence,’ ‘status,’ and
‘aesthetic intention.’ Yet it is also a representation of evolvement and resistance.
The local Sultanates found themselves in positions in which they are administrating
side by side with the Colonialists. In some cases, the increased wealth and resources
began to effect them, it infused a new aesthetic style which at times, surrenders to
the external pressure. Yet there were cases which would reflect such changes but still
held on the essence of the region. The Sultans and aristocrats were themselves ‘the
architects’ of such changes and hence the precursors of such language of form. The
significance of advocating a Classical language is related to the rising urbanisation
and wealth of the aristocrat , and yet in these cases, they still infused the local
artisanal traditions and evolved language which reflected the impact of modernising
forces of its era. These itself are the temporal and specific visual forms and faces of
Modernisation.
This Classical style is important as due to the rising urbanisation in the tropical
55

Asia, many of the imported styles are dominating the multi-storey facades of
buildings of the present cities and buildings. Many of the present urban typologies
are modelled as modern style and language; they reflect a “sealed” persona and
principles rather than explore a rooted style.
The “classical”‒rooted in origins‒must be differentiated by what is “cosmetic.”
Without this distinction, imitation cannot be differentiated from the invention. Past
studies of the Malay world did not locate “Malayness” merely in the isolated interior
of South-East Asian regions, which witnessed the thriving of not only such timber
traditions but also Malay civilisation as ancient and comprising of both masonry-
based and timber-based construction. These can be defined as the region’s “quasi-
urban archetypes,” which in a way reflect a form of urbanised language with a
permanent character derived from the roots of place. At times these palaces are also
forms of semi- cities; reflecting a network and conglomeration of spaces , ordered in a
certain hierarchy used for administration, the arts, education, and commerce. Palaces
or palatial architecture, in such traditional times, were the loci of activity‒similar to
city centres‒and were inextricably linked to the social structure and technological
advancement of its times. The overall forms, including the multilevel and layered
space, is reflective of their hold onto the Malay essence, reflecting the strict etiquette
and hierarchical social conventions among the royal courts of the Malay world,
hence resonating the cultural values that remain in the physical representation of
power structures at the centre of the Malay world of the time,.
The Classical Malay language, arising from these aristocratic forms, therefore
constitutes a style of its own. It should be treated as a resource of principles and
language that can evolve a set of rules that can delineate one of the essential language
of Malay identity. Such rules are embodied in formal archetypes (see Tengku Anis et
al., 2017) which reflect recurring façade archetypes and spatial forms that represent
a common recurring thread across the widely dispersed cultural geography of the
Sultanates of the Malay states. During the nineteenth century, these still reflected
the traditional systems of the Malay civilisations, and were manisfested in forms
underlying the core cultural institutions that played both a spiritual role and a cultural
one. In the case studies mentioned, physical alterations were done by the ruling
monarchs, but these were always principled alterations. Changes were made, but
within the archetypical form and aspects of language that were sustained. It was only
later after the 1900s , and beyond 1920s that the language were being dominated by
imported styles of the West, particularly in the epicentres of Straits Settlements.
It is argued that these forms, are developments that embody series of principles of
language and form that can be genealogically traced to an overall “Malay Classical”
56

principle. This has an overall style, grammar and structural foundations and must be
differentiated from “imitative” stylistic language. These palatial case studies exhibit
a hybrid language which can be argued as the part of the genealogical development
of a late Malay style. During this era, one ‘branch’ may die while the other root
begins to live.
The relationship among political structures, dynamics of powers, and
architectural form were part of the region’s dynamics and reflected eventually within
these palatial structures of Malay architecture which thus depicts the essential Malay
cosmopolitanism, withheld on to tradition, yet reconciling with other ‘cultures’ in a
spirit of coexistence and community. After independences in Asia , there was a stark
and rapid absorption of external forces, urban centers including parts of Indonesia
and Malaysia were undergoing rapid urbanisation, and gradually their aesthetic
principles of architectural language suffer from a “stagnation” as they experienced
a kind of impasse, due to a difficulty in reconciling their past, their Colonial history,
and their Modernising present.
Hence a genealogy can be formed, and the roots can be reconciled with then
technology of permutations and the timeless combinations of the ‘tectonic and
the stereotomic’, the perceived ‘heaviness and , in combination with the redefined
notions of the ‘temporary and permanent’, can be contextualised to the Malay region,
and re-instigate a rennaissance of an enduring aesthetic approach to a Malay-based
architecture.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the Transdisciplinary Research
fund (TRGS16-03-001-0001- Characterization of Rules of Malay Architectural
Language and Its Environmental Performance) from Ministry of Higher Education
Malaysia (MoHE) for the support of this research.
REFERENCES
Ab. Aziz Shuaib, & Olalere Folasayo Enoch. (2013). Application of Kelantan traditional
aesthetic values into the architecture of contemporary homes. Arts and Design Studies,
6(15).
Abdullah Fadzidah, Salleh, & Nurul Hamiruddin. (2005). Measured drawings and heritage
studies heritage report of Balai Besar, Alor Setar, Kedah. Kulliyah of Architecture and
Environmental Design (KAED) IIUM Heritage Center, International Islamic Univer-
sity Malaysia.
57

Ahmad Sanusi Hassan & Nohd Syafik Ahmad Nawawi. (2014). Malay architectural herit-
age on timber construction technique of the traditional Kampung Laut Old Mosque,
Malaysia, Asian Social Science, 10(8), pp.
Amaroso, Donna J. (2014). Traditionalism and the ascendancy of the Malay ruling class in
Malaya. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
Andaya, B. W., Andaya, Leonard, Y. (2017). A history of Malaysia (3rd ed.) Location: Pall-
grave Mcmillan Publishers.
Andaya, Leonard. (2010). Leaves of the Same Tree – Trade and Ethnicity in the Straits of
Malacca. Singapore: NUS Press.
Chang, Jiat-Hwee. (2016). Published in the Architect Series of Routledge. A genealogy of
tropical architecture: Colonial networks, nature, and technoscience. New York: Rout-
ledge.
Crimson, Mark. (1996). Empire building – orientalism and Victorian architecture. London:
Routledge.
Dames, M. L. (ed.). (1918). The book of Duarte Barbosa (p. 175). London: Hakluyt Society.
E. Hosseini, G. M. (2012). Design values in traditional architecture: Malay house. 6th Inter-
national Seminar on Vernacular Settlements, Contemporary Vernaculars: Places, Pro-
cesses and Manifestations, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 19-21 April, ISVS-6.
Eisenman, Peter. (1996). Masters jury discussion. In Davidson, Cynthia (Ed.), Architecture
Beyond Architecture - the 1995 Aga Khan Award for Architecture (Academy Editions).
Location: Publisher.
Frampton, Kenneth. (1981). Studies in tectonic culture the poetics of construction in nine-
teenth and twentieth century architecture. United States: The MIT Press.
Frampton, Kenneth. (1985). Critical regionalism - Modern architecture and cultural identity.
In Frampton, K., Modern architecture – a critical history. London: Thames and Hud-
son.
Gottfried, Semper. (1820). The four elements of architecture and other writings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gullick, J. M. (1987). Malay society in the late nineteenth century, the beginnings of change.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jahn Kassim, S., Nawawi, Norwina, & Abdul Majid, Noor Hanita. (2016). The resilience of
tradition, Malay allusions in contemporary architecture. Penang: ARECA Publishers.
Miksic, John, & Goh, Geok Yian, (2016). Ancient South East Asia. London: Routledge -
World of Archaeology.
Mohamad Rasdi, Mohamad Tajuddin & Mohd. Ali, Kamarudin & Syed Ariffin, Syed Ahmad
Iskandar & Mohamad, Ra’alah & Mursib, Gurupiah (2005). The architectural heritage
of the Malay world the traditional houses. Penerbit UTM, Skudai, Johor Bahru.
Nasir, Abdul Halim, Wan Teh, Wan Hashim. (1997). Warisan seni bina Melayu. Bangi: Uni-
versiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Reid, A. (2004). Understanding Melayu (Malay) as a source of diverse modern identities. In
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 32(3), 295 ‒ 313.
58

Scruton, Roger. (1995). The classical vernacular: Architectural principles in an age of nihil-
ism. Location: St. Martin’s Press.
Osborne, Milton. (2016). South East Asia-An introductory history (12 Ed.) Australia: Allen
Unwin Publishers.
O. H. Köenigsberger, & Thomas G. Ingersoll. (1980). Manual of tropical housing and build-
ing: Climatic design. London: Longman.
Diperoleh (Received): 30 Oktober 2017

Diterima (Accepted): 23 Julai 2018
59
View publication stats

Themes of Classicality 27 Dec Compressed1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Themes of Classicality 27 Dec Compressed1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Themes of Classicality 27 Dec Compressed1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Themes of Classicality in the Malay Architectural Form: Principles from an

Article · July 2018

Noor Hanita Abdul Majid Abdul Kadir

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shireen Jahn Kassim

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 27 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 28 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 29 1/9/19 4:44 PM

‘Classicality’ can thus be argued as a temporal attribute related to a kind of refined

Classicality as a style in the Western realm

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 30 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Classical in the East Asian societies

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 31 1/9/19 4:44 PM

THE 1800S, THE ARISTOCRACY, AND THE “CLASSICAL.”

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 32 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 33 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 34 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 35 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 36 1/9/19 4:44 PM

CASE STUDIES AND THE REGION

DESCRIPTION OF CASE STUDIES

The Palace of Lima Laras, Batu Bara, Sumatera

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 37 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Figure 3: Istana Lima Liras, Batu Bara, Sumatera

Istana Langkat, Tanjung Pura, Sumatera

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 38 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 39 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Istana Indragiri, Rengas Sumatera

Figure 6: Replica of Istana Indragiri, Danau Raja, Kota Rengat

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 40 1/9/19 4:44 PM

The Balai Besar, Alor Setar, Malaysia

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 41 1/9/19 4:44 PM

NO. PATTERN OF MOTIF NAME OF THE MOTIF

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 42 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 43 1/9/19 4:44 PM

BUNGA SULUR PAKU 2

BUNGA SULUR PAKU 1

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 44 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Baitul Rahmah (1905) and Baitun Anwar (1912)

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 45 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 46 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Figure 8: Elevation of Baitul Anwar, Kuala Kangsar

THE TIMELESSNESS OF THE MALAY FORM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 47 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 48 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Frampton’s theoretical frameworks of the tectonic and stereotonic elements

Recurring elements of the Classical Malay Form and Language

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 49 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 50 1/9/19 4:44 PM

The ‘Colonial’ root in Language

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 51 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Figure 12: Malay language in Istana Bandar, Klang

“Colonial- Malay”, “Classical Malay” and “Vernacular Malay”

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 52 1/9/19 4:44 PM

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 53

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 54

Book 27 Jurnal Melayu Dec. 2018.indb 55 1/9/19 4:44 PM