How much of Malaysia must we destroy before we call it heritage? — Khoo Ying Hooi

Malaysia must reconsider how easily it treats heritage as disposable, according to Khoo Ying Hooi, a political studies teacher. Old buildings, archaeological sites, prisons, temples, caves, cemeteries and neighborhoods hold immense historical value. These sites carry the stories of who lived in Malaysia, how people lived, and the country's past.

Once gone, they cannot be brought back. The Sakyamuni Caves Monastery at Gunung Kanthan in Perak has been a source of controversy, not just due to its religious significance but also because of the way Malaysia reduces heritage to land ownership disputes, quarrying rights and economic value. This monastery, along with other sites like Pudu Jail, Bok House and Candi No. 11, highlights a pattern where Malaysia has destroyed or neglected its heritage for development.

Malaysia has faced this predicament before and has not learned from its past. Pudu Jail, built in the 1890s, should have been a reminder of what heritage means, but it was demolished in 2010 in the name of redevelopment. Other significant sites, like Bok House and Candi No. 11, have also been lost to development. Malaysia must protect its heritage, not just as a defense against development, but as an integral part of development.

Cities around the world have found ways to incorporate historic buildings into new developments, creating conservation zones and growing without erasing their past. The Gunung Kanthan controversy further emphasizes this issue, as the destruction of limestone formations and rare ecosystems cannot be reversed once quarrying is completed.

Malaysia has lost sites to this pattern many times before, and it is time to stop pretending that every loss was unavoidable. The focus should shift from treating heritage as something to protect ceremonially to making it a preventive measure in development planning.