Debate over preserving buildings

Actor Jackie Chan is considering donating four Chinese historical buildings he acquired about 20 years ago to a Singapore university. The news has sparked a heated public debate, despite he vows he won't do anything illegal. Many people say that no historical building should be donated to an overseas university or other organization, says an article in Guangzhou Daily. Excerpts:

If the historical buildings are cultural relics, they cannot be donated to overseas institutions because that would violate Chinese laws. But if they are merely old buildings owned by Jackie Chan, no one has the right to interfere with his decision to donate them to any individual or institution of his choice. There is no denying, though, that he should take a discreet decision.

Why has Jackie Chan decided to donate the buildings to an overseas university instead of one in China? Perhaps domestic universities lack the expertise to preserve the old structures. But if the buildings are valuable, domestic universities should try to acquire them from Jackie Chan by improving their preservation expertise and vowing to use them with discretion.

According to experts, a historical building is different from other cultural relics, and can be preserved only under specific environmental and social conditions. The climate in Singapore has obvious limitations, which may not be suitable for preservation and protection of historical buildings. Besides, many historical structures lose their value when they are moved from their original location to another place. That's why many people have suggested that Jackie Chan make an informed decision before donating the buildings.

Some historical objects may not be cultural relics now, but can become so in the future. So it is the bounden duty of every Chinese to protect and preserve them for posterity. Therefore, Jackie Chan should rethink his decision to donate them to an overseas university.