Malacca buildings
M. Macdonald’s 1934 article “Malacca Buildings” is a colonial-era architectural survey that examines three principal structures in the Malacca Settlement: the surviving traditional Malay house type near Fort St. John, the Portuguese Church of St. Paul, and the Dutch Stadthuys. Writing from direct observation in November 1932, Macdonald attempts to reconstruct the architectural genealogy of each building through a combination of physical evidence, contemporary maps, and administrative records, arguing that each structure’s present form is the product of successive functional repurposings rather than a single coherent design intent.
Summary
The article opens with a typological analysis of the Malay house still visible along the Malacca coast, which Macdonald identifies as the oldest surviving Malay type in the Settlement. He distinguishes it from the Bugis house (which has a protruding kitchen) and the Minangkabau type (whose protruding elements lie on the principal axis), arguing that the characteristic front vestibule is a rational extension of the side-gallery found in agricultural house types, while the change in entrance direction reflects the needs of a trading people living in towns or along roads. He traces the general origin of the type to Palembang, where houses built on rafts in single rows could not spare front-space for side-galleries, and notes that the plan with steps in front (as shown in Swettenham’s British Malaya) is an assimilation rather than the original form. The article catalogues several features on the verge of disappearance: the spongy limonite blocks used for steps, the lower board lining the front-gallery that served as a sleeping-out-porch, and the long drawn low windows that Macdonald predicts will reappear in modern architecture.
The longest section reconstructs the architectural history of the Church of St. Paul through a sequence of probable dates. Macdonald argues that the vaulted part (choir and adjacent room) was built directly after or together with the castle as a military keep, not as a church, pointing to the absence of recesses and the tower’s isolated position. He rejects Hazel’s assertion that d’Albuquerque built it as a church and instead proposes a conversion to a chapel dedicated to St. Paul around 1550, when the walls round the hill were completed and a permanent guard at the keep became superfluous. The subsequent additions—an aisle (c. 1600), the breaking of the west wall for a large arch (c. 1630), and the erection of a new tower as a lighthouse (c. 1760)—are each argued from specific physical evidence: differences in masonry layers, the height of windowsills above doors, the form of window arches, and the visible circular window in the gable. Macdonald also reconstructs the interior seating arrangement for the Dutch Reformed congregation from the 1755 list of coats of arms, placing the Commander and President at the east of the choir door, the fiscal near the choir wall, and the First Civil Company opposite.
The final section turns to the Stadthuys, where Macdonald uses Governor Bort’s 1670 memorandum to argue that the building as it stands did not exist in that form, since Bort mentions only separate houses for the Secretariat and Pay-office. He dates the uniform gables to the period when the western aisle was linked up, drawing a parallel with the gables of the Batavia archives built about 1760, and identifies the front steps as a copy of the “bordes” at the Batavia Government building. He also speculates that the mysterious stairs in the courtyard may have given access to a Portuguese Governor’s chapel, which would explain the popular name “Our Lady of the Mount.”
Key Findings
- The vaulted part of St. Paul’s was built c. 1520 as a military keep or powderhouse, not as a church; the present south doorway was originally a window, as plinth-mouldings prove (p. 29).
- Schouten’s 1641 post-siege report records the tower at 100 feet high and advises its conversion to a “fort of domination,” with the church reserved for divine service on principal holidays (p. 31).
- Governor Bort’s 1670 memorandum mentions no “Stadthuys,” only separate houses for the Secretariat and Pay-office, and records that he ordered 8,000 glazed tiles for the leaky roof of his house, implying a surface of approximately 2,300 square feet (p. 33).
- The 1713 list of tombs compiled by de Bruyn includes one stone dated 1673, but Macdonald argues this was brought in after Bort’s time, probably from the Misericordia, which was already disused as a church by 1670 (p. 32).
- The 1755 list of coats of arms (Journal Vol. 34) was probably intended to record new positions after the interior was rearranged; no important persons were buried in St. Paul’s after 1736, suggesting the decision to build the new church was taken shortly thereafter (p. 32).
- The present tower of St. Paul’s was erected after the building’s abandonment as a church (c. 1760) and served from the beginning as a lighthouse, replacing a light on the old tower that had to be cut down to the present height (p. 33).
Conclusion
Macdonald’s definitive takeaway is that the architectural history of Malacca’s principal buildings is one of continuous functional adaptation rather than original design coherence: the St. Paul’s church began as a military keep, the Stadthuys evolved from separate administrative outbuildings, and the Malay house type reflects the slow accretion of features driven by trade, urban density, and tropical necessity. He explicitly frames his essay as conjectural, acknowledging that “the facts about the graves and floors would have had more value than my conjectures,” and closes by urging others to seek better evidence or explanations.
Context
- Macdonald writes as a colonial-era observer with direct access to the buildings and to archival materials (Bort’s memorandum, Schouten’s Utrechtsch Genootschap, de Eredia’s map, the British Museum map), but his analysis is speculative in tone and explicitly invites correction.
- The article draws on the Town and Fort publication and Hazel’s work on Malacca, positioning itself within the small body of early twentieth-century architectural scholarship on the Settlement.