Colombo, 23 July 2026:
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) receives with a sense of alarm and distress the Prime Minister’s reported statement to the House that “the Government is moving ahead with plans to repurpose the Presidential House [sic] and former official ministerial bungalows for public and commercial use instead of using them as official residences.”
The preservation of colonial-era buildings is often controversial because they are associated with periods of foreign domination, inequality, and political subjugation. Yet the question of preservation is distinct from the question of historical judgement. To preserve a building is not necessarily to celebrate the political order that produced it. Rather, it is to acknowledge that the physical fabric of history forms part of a society’s cultural inheritance. For this reason, colonial buildings, particularly great buildings of state such as official residences, government houses, and country estates associated with public authority, should generally be preserved. Moreover, the most significant of these buildings should continue to be owned, maintained, and used by the state rather than being privatised and converted into commercial enterprises. Their value lies not merely in their architectural merit but in their continuing role as symbols of national continuity, public memory, and constitutional identity.
First, colonial buildings are often among the most important architectural achievements in a country. They embody craftsmanship, design traditions, engineering techniques, and aesthetic ideals that may be difficult or impossible to reproduce today. Many colonial structures were designed by leading architects of their time and constructed using materials and methods that have become rare. Their significance therefore extends beyond politics. They are cultural artefacts that testify to a particular moment in the development of architecture and urban design. The destruction or neglect of such buildings represents an irreversible loss not only of historical evidence but also of artistic achievement.
Secondly, colonial buildings provide a tangible connection to history. Nations require physical reminders of their past if historical memory is to remain vivid and meaningful. Textbooks and archives are important, but they cannot replace the experience of encountering history in built form. A government house, colonial courthouse, or official residence allows citizens to engage directly with the past. Such buildings remind societies not only of the achievements of previous generations but also of their mistakes and injustices. Preserving them therefore encourages a mature engagement with history rather than a selective or sanitised one. Democracies in particular benefit from retaining material evidence of all periods of their history, including those that may be uncomfortable or contested.
The argument for preservation is even stronger in the case of great buildings of state. Throughout history, states have invested particular buildings with constitutional, ceremonial, and symbolic significance. A head of state’s residence is not merely a house; it is an institution. It embodies the authority, continuity, and dignity of the state itself. The value of such buildings therefore lies not only in their physical structure but also in the meanings that have accumulated around them through generations of public use.
Buildings such as presidential residences, governor-general’s houses, royal palaces, and official country retreats serve as visible representations of the state. Citizens recognise them as places where important national decisions are made, where foreign dignitaries are received, and where constitutional ceremonies take place. Their significance derives from repeated use over time. A building becomes nationally important precisely because generations of officeholders have occupied it and generations of citizens have associated it with the life of the nation. If such buildings are privatised, that continuity is broken. A structure that once represented public authority is reduced to a commercial asset, and an important element of national symbolism is lost.
Furthermore, the state has a responsibility to act as the custodian of heritage on behalf of future generations. Public ownership ensures that preservation decisions are guided by cultural, historical, and constitutional considerations rather than solely by financial calculations. A private owner may be tempted to alter a historic building extensively in pursuit of commercial profitability. Hotels, luxury apartments, and event venues often require significant structural modifications that can undermine the authenticity and integrity of heritage sites. Even where preservation regulations exist, commercial pressures frequently encourage compromises that diminish historical value. Public ownership provides a stronger guarantee that heritage will be protected for its own sake.
Another important consideration is the symbolic distinction between public and private purposes. Great buildings of state were generally constructed to serve public functions. Their architecture often reflects ideals of authority, representation, and civic dignity. When such buildings become luxury hotels, exclusive resorts, or private residences, they cease to belong symbolically to the nation as a whole. Access becomes dependent on wealth and privilege rather than citizenship. A building that once expressed collective ownership becomes an instrument of private profit. This transformation can weaken public attachment to national institutions and diminish the sense that the state possesses a physical presence within the life of the nation.
Maintaining state ownership also promotes constitutional continuity. States, unlike governments, endure across generations. Official residences and ceremonial buildings provide visible evidence of that continuity. They link present officeholders with their predecessors and create a sense of permanence amid political change. The individual occupant may change, but the institution remains. This continuity is especially important in countries with complex historical trajectories, including former colonies. By repurposing colonial government houses for contemporary national use, post-colonial states can symbolically appropriate and transform inherited structures. What was once a symbol of colonial authority becomes a symbol of independent statehood. Retaining such buildings in public use therefore demonstrates confidence and historical maturity rather than dependence on colonial memory.
Economic arguments for privatisation are often overstated. While maintaining large historic buildings can be expensive, the costs should be viewed as investments in national heritage and public culture. States routinely fund museums, libraries, archives, and monuments because they are recognised as public goods. Great buildings of state belong within the same category. Their value cannot be measured solely in commercial terms. They contribute to tourism, education, diplomacy, and national identity in ways that far exceed the revenue that might be generated through private development.
Moreover, public ownership does not preclude public accessibility. Many successful examples around the world combine official state use with public visitation, educational programmes, cultural events, and heritage interpretation. Such arrangements allow citizens to enjoy and understand these sites while preserving their constitutional functions. A building can simultaneously be a working institution and a public heritage asset.
In conclusion, colonial buildings should generally be preserved because they possess architectural, historical, and cultural significance that transcends the political circumstances of their creation. To preserve them is not to celebrate colonialism but to protect an important part of the historical record. The case for preserving great buildings of state is even stronger. These buildings embody national continuity, constitutional authority, and collective memory. They are institutions as much as structures. For that reason, they should remain in public ownership, maintained and used by the state for public purposes rather than privatised and transformed into commercial enterprises. A nation that preserves such buildings affirms that its history, however complex, is a shared inheritance, and that some places are too important to be treated merely as assets in the marketplace.