Indonesian Political, Business & Finance News

Candra Naya, test of commitment to preservation

| Source: JP

Candra Naya, test of commitment to preservation

Tantri Yuliandini, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Even now, straddled by a monstrous, unfinished, concrete and
steel structure and stripped of all its splendor, the Candra Naya
Chinese mansion on Jl. Gajah Mada, West Jakarta, still looks
majestic.

Two buildings, one in front of the other, with their
distinctive "swallow's tail" roof are what remain of the once
extensive and imposing mansion. There wasn't even the excuse of
war, but like most other traces of early culture in Indonesia,
this may also disappear from the place it has stood for the last
two centuries.

"Items of cultural property are important resources of the
national culture, related to the understanding and promotion of
history, science, and culture that require protection,
preservation and conservation for the fulfilling of an
understanding of national identity and the national interest,"
Law No. 5/1992 concerning Items of Cultural Property stipulates.
Yet in many cases the national interest is defined in economic
terms and national identity is forced to take a backseat.

So where do we draw the line between progress and the
preservation of our cultural past? The question has been
pestering experts for years, torn between economic necessity and
national pride.

"If it was the only one in existence. If it is rare, unique,
and special," senior archaeologist from the University of
Indonesia, Mundardjito, said when asked what historical buildings
should be preserved.

If those are the requirements then Candra Naya perfectly fits
the bill.

Constructed sometime in the 19th century by the affluent and
influential Khouw family, Candra Naya is considered the city's
biggest and most complete building in the Chinese architectural
style. It is also the only one, as two other mansions -- built by
the same family -- were demolished long ago.

According to research by Irma Hastuti from the University of
Indonesia's School of Archaeology, the earlier inhabitant of the
mansion was businessman Khouw Tjeng Tjoan, who lived in the 100-
room mansion with his 14 wives and 24 children.

Candra Naya then was an extensive 67-meter by 43-meter
building with a courtyard in the middle, all standing on 1.5
hectares of land. Following the traditional Chinese architectural
style, the back building was where the head of the family lived,
the buildings on each side of the courtyard housed the children.

The mansion's most famous resident was Khouw Kim An (1897-
1945) -- a prominent businessman and banker -- who became a
majoor (major), or the highest ranking Chinese leader in the
Dutch East Indies.

The book The Chinese Captain of Batavia 1837-1942 said that
Batavia had only five majors, of which Khouw Kim An was one
between 1910 and 1918, and reappointed between 1927 and 1942.

After Khouw's death in 1945, the mansion became headquarters
for the Sin Ming Hui (New Light Foundation), a Chinese social
organization that provided health care and education, as well as
supported sports and photography clubs. The foundation was later
renamed Candra Naya, and the headquarters became Candra Naya
Building.

During the war for independence, the mansion became witness to
the establishment of the Pao An Tui, an organization to ensure
the protection and safety of the Chinese in Indonesia during the
war.

Cultural expert, Wastu Pragantha Zhong, in an earlier
interview said that Candra Naya founded the Sumber Waras Hospital
in West Jakarta and Tarumanagara University.

"The university's school of architecture, law, economics, and
English were initially located at the mansion," he said.

Candra Naya Building also played an important part in grooming
the glory of Indonesian badminton history as it housed the first
tournament ever organized by the Badminton Association of
Indonesia (PBSI) in 1955.

Among the shuttlers were Ferry Sonneville, Eddy Yusuf, and Tan
Joe Hok, who all went on to win the first Thomas Cup team's
championship for Indonesia in 1957.

Irma said the building became the headquarters for the
Indonesian Student Action Front (KAMI) during the upheaval
following the aborted coup in 1965, blamed by most Indonesians on
the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), and became the site for
raising money for financing the city's development during the
governorship of Ali Sadikin (1966-1977).

Architecturally, Candra Naya is also special. Blending
traditional Chinese values in architecture with the practicality
of the Indisch style of architecture, a reflection of the melting
pot of Batavia society.

"It has many non-Chinese touches not found in pure Chinese
architecture," heritage observer David Kwa said, citing the
window shutters and window bars, marble floor, glass skylight,
ironwork ornamentation, which are obviously Indisch-style
architecture.

The uniqueness of Candra Naya earned it protected building and
cultural property status from the Dutch in its Monumenten
Ordonantie Stb. 238/1931, the Republic of Indonesia's Minister of
Education and Culture edict no. 0128/M/1988, and Jakarta
Governor's decree no. Cb.11/1/12/1972 and no. 475/1993.

It was further protected under Law no. 5/1992 concerning Items
of Cultural Property and Government Regulation no. 10/1993 on
implementation of law no. 5/1992.

So why is Candra Naya's existence still questioned? The laws
protecting it should ensure the building is preserved and
utilized for the advancement of the national culture of
Indonesia.

However, Law no. 5/1992 also stipulates that "without
permission from the Government, each and every person is
prohibited from taking away or removing items of cultural
property either in part or whole, except in case of emergency".
Well, the government could be persuaded could it not?

The government had already allowed the current owner -- the
Modern Group, owned by business tycoon Hartono Samadikun who
bought the property in 1992 -- to build a hotel and apartment
block on the property to generate income for the maintenance of
Candra Naya.

According to Wisnu Murti Ardjo, Chairman of the Jakarta
Administration's Advisory Team for Cultural Heritage, the
government has also given in to demands that the back building be
torn down to make way for a 24-floor apartment, and the side
buildings be dismantled temporarily to construct the foundations
of a walkway connecting the apartment and the hotel which was to
be constructed in front of Candra Naya.

And so what was left of the historic Candra Naya building
would stand inside a "cave" of glass, steel, and concrete. Wisnu
said this was acceptable at the time because of Soeharto's
regulations against the preservation of Chinese culture in
Indonesia.

"That in itself was all wrong," Mundardjito said. "In
principle, a cultural property should never be changed out of its
context, its authenticity in space, and neither could its
workmanship be modified."

The economic crisis in 1998, however, halted all construction
and the Modern Group fell into the hands of the Indonesian Bank
Restructuring Agency (IBRA).

New investors for the property refused to have Candra Naya as
part of its business development, and hence Modern Group's
proposal -- together with the Indonesian Chinese Social
Organization (PSMTI) - to move the building to Taman Mini
Indonesia Indah (TMII).

Strong protests ensued from the architectural, archaeological,
and heritage communities, as well as from the people living
around Candra Naya.

"On behalf of the Chinese community living around Candra Naya,
we reject the proposal that the building be moved to TMII. As who
will maintain the upkeep of the building? We will campaign for
it," Virja Surja Tonowidjaja, a community leader, said.

They, together with the city administration's advisory team
and other relevant government institutions, have submitted their
rejection of the proposal together with recommendations to
Governor Sutiyoso.

"One is for the governor to appeal to IBRA to give special
priority for the maintenance of Candra Naya while the process of
the Modern Group's assets goes on," Wisnu said.

Candra Naya's future hangs on how much importance the
government is willing to put on the preservation of its cultural
history.

View JSON | Print