Turismo Desarrollo Singapore

HERITAGE AS A TOURISM COMMODITY: TRAVERSINGTHE TOURIST-LOCAL DIVIDE

T.C. ChangDepartment of Geography, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 18(1), 1997, 46-68 Copyright 1997 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, and Blackwell Publishers Ltd

INTRODUCTION

One of the most popular souvenir items amongtourists visiting Singapore is a T-shirt whichretails for S$12.00 (approximately US$8.60).The front of this T-shirt reads “Singapore is afine city”. On the back are displayed a numberof signs proclaiming: “No littering, fine$1,000”, “No eating and drinking in the MRT,fine S$500”, “No spitting, fine S$100” andother prohibitions and their monetarypenalties. Singapore is indeed a “fine city” inmany ways and tourists appreciate the self-deprecating humour of the T-shirt. What themanufacturers had not anticipated, however,was how popular the souvenir would also bewith Singaporeans, many of whom proudlybuy the item either for themselves or friends.What was originally intended as a tourist

ABSTRACT

In developing tourist attractions, government planning authorities and entrepreneurs face achallenging task trying to cater to the interests of foreign visitors while meeting the needs of thelocal community. This paper presents the case of tourism development as a dynamic process inwhich the “tourist-local divide” is negotiated and the welfare of both groups monitored. Thisargument is empirically developed with the aid of two case studies on heritage tourism in Singapore:the adaptive re-use of old shophouses after their conversion into boutique hotels, and the re-invention of street activities as tourist sites. The commoditisation thesis advanced by many tourismwriters is critiqued. I argue that heritage development is geared towards Singaporeans as much asit is towards tourists, and the effects of commoditisation are not always negative for the hostcommunity. Rather than a static object, heritage is an ever-changing product influenced by thecombined effects of economic development, tourism and socio-cultural forces at the local scale.For this reason, the notion that commoditisation leads to “inauthenticity” is re-evaluated and amore optimistic prognosis on heritage tourism is offered.

commodity, therefore, has an appeal to thelocal non-tourist market too; that which ispopular with “outsiders” also resonates withthe “insider” crowd.

The souvenir T-shirt illustration is a fittingmetaphor for the multiple roles touristattractions are expected to play today. Because“tourist places” often cater to the needs andinterests of residents especially in land-scarcelocalities, government planning authorities andtourism enterprises must ensure that the touristproduct is attractive to visitors while alsomeeting the social and leisure aspirations oflocals. In many cities, cultural and historicalelements have been appropriated by the leisureindustry and this is manifested in the form of

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM2

urban conservation areas, the adaptive re-useof old buildings and the development offestival markets and theme parks with aheritage flavour (Law, 1993). The objectivesof these projects are multi-faceted: to boostcapital accumulation, promote civic pride andproject an attractive image for investors,tourists and residents (Roberts & Schein,1993). In what is derided as the “hijacking”of heritage by the leisure and tourism industry(Uzzell, 1989:3), a concerted voice has alsobeen raised to warn against the economicabuses of culture and their resultant outcomes- the creation of inauthentic landscapes thatspeak little of local identities and lifestyles.Concepts like the “commoditisation” of culture(Greenwood, 1977; 1989) and themanipulation of “cultural capital” (Kearns &Philo, 1993) have been developed to callattention to the detrimental effects of theheritage industry. As Ashworth and Tunbridge(1990:54) point out, in the worst case scenario,tourism is responsible for the “bowdlerisationof history” and the “reduction of thecomplexity and richness of the urban heritageto a few simple recognisable and marketablecharacteristics.”

This paper provides a more nuancedunderstanding of the role of “heritagecommodities” as tourist attractions and localresources. Specifically, it argues that thedevelopment of heritage attractions involvesan attempt at mediating the tourist-local rift,with government planning authorities andbusiness enterprises constantly negotiatingbetween the diverse needs of the two marketsegments. Converting cultural items intotourism products (or cultural commoditisation)does not have only detrimental effects but hasboth positive and negative implications for thelocal and tourist communities. Drawing upontwo case studies of heritage development inSingapore, specifically the development ofboutique hotels and the re-invention of streetactivities, the paper explores and documentsthe dialectical tension behind thecommoditisation process. As Burtenshaw etal. (1991:218) have argued, tourism

development seeks to create a “saleabletourism product” on the one hand and an“environment for living and working” on theother. To set the context for my argument, thecommoditisation literature is critiqued,followed by a brief sketch of Singapore’s urbanplanning agenda and some comments onmethodology. The substantive section of thediscussion is devoted to the case studies.

TRAVERSING THE TOURIST-LOCAL DIVIDE: CONCEPTUALVIEWPOINTS

Heritage tourism is defined as the phenomenonin which the cultural, historical and ethniccomponents of a society or place are harnessedas resources to attract tourists, as well asdevelop a leisure and tourism industry(Hewison, 1987). The heritage tourismphenomenon has often been criticised forconverting local cultures and lifestyles into“commodities” for sale to foreign audiences.Cultural commoditisation, it is argued,contributes to the denigration of socialcustoms, the alienation of residents and thecreation of homogeneity between places. AsMachlis and Burch (1983:684) warn, theeconomic allure of tourism and the need tocater to tourists is a key reason for the “mythicreconstruction” of places and the falsificationof histories and identities.

The commoditisation thesis has garnered anavid following ever since Greenwood’s (1977)seminal paper on the Alarde ritual inFuenterrabia, Spain. According to him, whatwas once a private ritual commemoratingFuenterrabia’s victory over the French in 1638has become over the course of time a publicperformance enacted twice daily for outsiders.Through commoditisation, the Alarde has beenrobbed of its spontaneity and spirit ofvoluntarism, and converted into an economicexercise and an “obligation to be avoided”(Greenwood, 1989:178). Indeed, once adestination area or cultural event is co-optedby tourism, it becomes a consumer product and

Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 47

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM3

risks losing “its meaning and significance forlocal people and, potentially, its authenticityto tourists” (Sharpley, 1994:129). In what isbest termed the “culture of consumption”, thecorporate body or government thus gives tothe consumer what he or she wants, and theemphasis shifts away from the actual artefactor the place itself (Teo & Yeoh, 1997:194).

This pessimistic portrayal of thecommoditisation process paints only one facetof the nexus between tourism and heritageentrepreneurship and precludes the possibilitythat cultural commoditisation may also beundertaken for non-economic reasons withbenefits for the home community as well.Rather than a vehicle of destruction, is it notpossible to consider tourism as an agent incultural renaissance? Where cultural meaningsare altered, is it not possible to point the fingerat other agents of social change? In rethinkingthe case of the Alarde, Greenwood (1989:181-82) is persuaded against his earlier pessimismand it is worthwhile to quote this change ofheart at some length:

Further reflection on what I wroteearlier suggested to me the need to placethe process described in the chapterwithin a broader context. After all, localcultures have been transformed bytourism, but so have they been byindustrialization, urbanization,pollution, poverty, civil war,immigration, and a host of other factors.Does tourism have unique effects? Areits cultural manifestations alwaysnegative? ... Are we correct that all localcultural values are being destroyed? Orare they changing once again, under thepress of circumstance and from theirown internal dynamics ... Some of whatwe see as a destruction is construction;some is the result of a lack of any otherviable options; and some the result ofchoices that could be made differently.

A number of important points raised here mustbe emphasised to throw light on the “wider

context” of the heritage commoditisationprocess.

First, it is an oversight to consider localcultures as passive, and proclaim tourism asthe most important agent of social change. Analternative view would be to regard localsocieties as changing all the time and tourismis only one contributor to the process. AsWood (1993:66) maintains, there is no suchthing as a “pristine pre-tourism culturalbaseline” to measure tourism’s impact, and ouremphasis would be better focused on the“complex ways tourism enters and becomespart of an on-going process of symbolicmeaning and appropriation”. Cultures andsocieties evolve constantly with or without theaid of tourism and heritage development isundertaken for diverse reasons. Drawing onthe case of the post-industrial city, Law (1993)for example, demonstrated that while tourismplays a significant role in urban restructuring,it is neither the only nor the chief reason forchange. Communal assertions of identity,increasing local appreciation of heritage andcivic awareness also contribute to the “newurban renaissance”. Changes in the urbancultural landscapes are best understood as theoutcome of multiple factors interacting withone another. In this paper, the needs of touristsand the welfare of locals must be consideredin tandem, and the role of the state or theentrepreneur should be seen as taking the formof a “cultural broker” or “middle-person”(after Wood, 1984; Nash, 1977; 1989). Ratherthan view tourism as an aggressive externalforce intruding upon societies and determiningdevelopment processes, we must alsoacknowledge the role offered by “local” orinternal factors.

Second, the commoditisation thesisportrays the tourist-local balance as tipped infavour of visitors while the needs of residentsare either marginalised or totally neglected.Not only does this view fail to appreciate thenon-tourist as a heritage consumer, it alsounderestimates the flexibility of those in chargeof heritage development and the malleability

48 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM4

of the heritage product. It is possible for theheritage entrepreneur and product to servemultiple goals at one time without alienatingany particular group of people. It is a fallacyto think that a tourist attraction cannot also bea recreation site for locals, or a social area ofinteraction, or all three simultaneously. Inrebuking the notion that the “tourist-historiccity” is only for tourists, Ashworth and Voogd(1990:9) have asserted that “precisely the samephysical space, and in practice much the samefacilities and attributes of that space, are soldsimultaneously to different groups ofcustomers for different purposes”. Ashworth(1990) further offers the example of Groningenin which the conserved historic cityencompasses touristic, leisure, shopping,administrative and cultural functions servinga multitude of users and purposes. Heritage isnot a relic but a dynamic and multi-purposeresource (Ashworth & Larkham, 1994) or aform of capital that can be moulded andtransformed for diverse audiences.

The concept of cultural capital furtherelucidates the malleability of the tourismproduct. While this concept has been usedmost often in the context of urban politicaleconomy (Harvey, 1987; 1993; Kearns &Philo, 1993; Kenny, 1995; Zukin, 1995),Britton (1991) has urged geographers to adoptit in exploring changes in the tourist landscape.This is because the tourism industry, as withurban development, depends upon placequalities and cultural distinctiveness topromote capital accumulation. In her book TheCultures of Cities, Zukin (1995) offers astriking example of the transformation ofcultural capital to suit varying marketrequirements. Using the case of theMassachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art(MASS MoCA), she shows that thedevelopment of an art museum in the town ofNorth Adams was originally conceived as away to boost arts-based tourism and promotelocal craft industries. Over time, however, inthe hope of being integrated into the “globalart world”, the museum began presenting itselfas a “project of international significance

connected with institutions around the worldand largely independent of its local context”(Zukin, 1995:92; original emphasis).Conceptual avant garde art thus began toreplace folk art, and the MASS MoCA wasdesignated as “an outpost of global culturerather than a local social institution” (Zukin,1995:103). In the mid-1990s, economicdifficulties forced the museum to restructureonce again, this time by embracing localgroups like seasoned visitors, year-roundresidents, regional artists and craftspeople.Negotiating the tourist-local divide is thereforeinevitable if a heritage attraction wishes to caterto multiple clientele over the course of time(see also Teo & Yeoh, 1997).

A third perspective ignored by thecommoditisation school of thought is thepotential benefits derived through heritagetourism. Critics point to what is commonlytermed “inauthenticity” as the inevitableoutcome of cultural commoditisation (Cohen,1988). In urban tourism, heritage developmentis criticised for erasing the historical fabric ofthe city and replacing it with quaint anddecorative accents geared towards economicreturns (Urry, 1990). It is arrogant, however,to say that local societies and cultures mustremain exotic in order to be appraised asauthentic by the global traveller. Thecommoditisation thesis perpetuates this notionbecause it demands that destination areasremain timeless, static and largely unchangedby economic and technological forces. It isoften the cynical tourist or critic who wishesaway modernity in the place he or she has cometo visit but as Iyer (1988:14) cautions, what isconsidered “corruption” by the foreigner mightbe interpreted as “progress” by the native.

Unquestionably, heritage conservationleads to changes in the identity and land usesof places. However, an alternative way to viewthese changes would be to say that “zones ofdiscard” are revalorised in the name of urbanboosterism and converted into usefulenvironments for visitors and locals. In thewell-documented case of Syracuse, heritage


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM5

enhancement has “opened up” decayingindustrial warehouses and defunctmanufacturing districts and converted theminto pleasant residential areas, leisure sites,tourist attractions and places of civicimportance (Roberts & Schein, 1993; Short etal., 1993; Short, 1995). Although the historicaland geographic realities of Syracuse have been“imagineered” and “selectively appropriated”by developers (Roberts & Schein, 1993:28),the re-imagined urban narrative is no less“real” than past incarnations. Writing in thecontext of cultural changes in Southeast Asia,Hitchcock et al. (1993) define “tradition” asan ever-evolving set of symbols and meaningsrather than a “thing” passed from onegeneration to another embalmed andunchanged. To speak of “inauthenticity”,therefore, necessarily implies that there is anauthentic set of cultural practices bequeathedfrom the past, and any change is prelude tocultural erosion and the collapse of society.

A reappraisal of the commoditisation theoryis indeed overdue. Heritage tourism productsare geared towards global audiences as wellas home communities, and it is imperative toexplore the heritage development process astraversing (or attempting to traverse) thetourist-local divide. The end result is notalways negative as the “pessimistic hand-wringing” approach of some writers suggests(McKean, 1989:120). Rather, heritagedevelopment takes varied forms in differentplaces depending on the success of theplanning authority or entrepreneur in bridgingthe tourist-local rift. This paper investigatesthe concerted effort taken in Singapore to caterto different market groups.

URBAN PLANNING ANDHERITAGE CONSERVATIONIN SINGAPORE

Before exploring the case studies, the widercontext of urban planning and conservation inSingapore is briefly sketched, with a particular

focus on the reasons which prompted thegovernment’s turn towards urban conservationin the 1980s and the role of tourism vis-à-vislocal factors in encouraging this phenomenon.After independence in 1965, one of the firstpriorities of the Singapore government wasslum clearance in the Central Area andrehousing those affected into public housingflats in new satellite towns. Throughout the1960s and 1970s, little emphasis was placedon identifying historic areas becauseconservation was regarded a luxury ill-afforded by the land-scarce city (Tay, 1991;Kong & Yeoh, 1994). By the early to mid-1980s, however, Singapore’s economicprogress and Singaporeans’ rising affluencemeant that planning priorities could now shiftto “quality of life” issues expressed in demandsfor distinctive environments and culturalpursuits (Liu, 1990). Symptomatic of this shiftwas the rethinking of state policies on urbanrenewal and the call for the conservation ofhistoric areas and buildings as spelt out by theUrban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA)conservation agenda (URA, 1986). Under thisnew mindset, ethnic historic sites such asChinatown, Little India and Kampong Glamwere viewed as repositories of the nation’s fastvanishing heritage and cultural anchors thatgave young Singaporeans a tangible link totheir “roots”.

The urban conservation movementprompted public and academic debate on twofronts. On the one hand, it highlighted what ispopularly termed the “conservation-redevelopment dilemma” (Lee, 1991; Kong &Yeoh, 1994; Yeoh & Huang, 1996) in whichthe government’s policy of conserving onlythe facades of buildings while radically alteringtheir internal uses is questioned. In particular,the conservation exercise is criticised for its“artificial prefabrication” of old buildings andthe eradication of traditional activities andtenants who used to reside there (Lee,1992:139-40). This point is related to thesecond debate which questions the benefits ofurban conservation for locals. This “tourist-local debate” (Lee, 1992; Lau, 1993; Chen,

50 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM6

1995; Teo & Huang, 1995) argues that tourismtakes centrestage in urban policies and theresult is the creation of “elitist” landscapes far“removed from the experiences of the locals”(Teo & Huang, 1995:608). As Teo and Huang(1995:591) warn, “There is a need to askwhether the government’s tourismdevelopment plans are endorsed by the localsor, to put it in more popular language, ‘Arethe goals and objectives clearly defined andrelated to local needs?’”.

That tourism contributes to Singapore’surban redevelopment programme cannot bedenied. A fall in tourist arrivals by 3.5 percent in 1983, the first and only time touristnumbers declined, and modest growth ratesuntil 1987 were attributed inter alia toSingapore’s dull and uninteresting cityscape(Leong, 1989; Chang et al. 1996.). Accordingto a Tourism Task Force which was convenedto provide recommendations on revitalising thetourism product, the country’s loss of“Oriental mystique and charm ... bestsymbolised in old buildings, traditionalactivities and bustling roadside activities”(Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI),1984:15) was an impetus for the downturn. Alocal newspaper, The Business Times (18October 1983) put it more bluntly: “there is adearth of scenery, history and cultural wealth... made worse by the constant erosion of whatis left of our cultural and architectural heritagein the name of modernization andadvancement.” In a conscious effort to revampthe tourism product, the MTI in collaborationwith the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board(STPB) and other statutory boards conceiveda S$1 billion masterplan. Five themes wereselected of which two had a heritagecomponent focusing on the “Exotic East” and“Colonial heritage” (MTI, 1986).

Although tourism is an important factorbehind Singapore’s conservation programme,it is debatable as to whether it constituted the

primary reason. Conservation was undertakenfor varied objectives inspired by localcommunal concerns as well as broader globalneeds (Chang et al., 1996; Chang, 1997; Yeoh& Huang, 1996). In a stocktaking account ofSingapore’s conservation efforts, Liu (1990)maintained that the interest in heritage in themid-1980s was the outcome of changingcommunity perception towards urban living.More specifically, this included the demandfor a greater quality of life; reclamation workswhich provided ample land for expansionthereby alleviating the need to tear downhistoric areas; and the “awakening” ofSingaporeans to the need for history and thedemand for a “greater variety of leisure outletswhich modern architecture alone cannot offer”(Liu, 1990:7-8). Echoing this view was theSTPB which publicly asserted that itsconservation agenda was propelled by the needto attract tourists while improvingSingaporeans’ standard of living so that“Singapore will not only be a great city to visit;more importantly, it will be an even better cityin which to live” (STPB, 1989:7). Clearly,tourism is only one reason for urban re-enchantment rather than a singular cause of it.As Wood (1993:67-68) commented,“tourism’s impact is always played out in analready dynamic and changing culturalcontext” and its role must be viewed withinthe wider backdrop of local communitychange.

The academic discourse on urbanconservation is therefore dominated by thequestions of “what is being conserved?” and“who benefits from the conservationexercise?” (Tunbridge, 1984; Ashworth &Tunbridge, 1990). These questions takecentrestage in the conservation-redevelopmentdilemma and the tourist-local debate inSingapore. It is clear, however, that whiletourism provided an impetus in Singapore’sconservation efforts, its role must be viewedwithin the panoramic backdrop of changingsocial and cultural structures in the country.


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM7

METHODOLOGICALCONCERNS

To substantiate the claims laid out above, theboutique hotel phenomenon and the re-invention of street activities in Singapore areexamined. Both case studies focus on theinterface between urban conservation andtourism, and present a platform for discussingthe potential tensions between locals andvisitors. In interrogating the tourist-localdialectic, a difficult task is to incorporate asense of the “unheard” local voices,particularly those of the resident communitywhose rights may be trampled upon bytourism. This study contributes to the tourist-local debate by focusing attention on a differentset of local agencies, that of an elite local groupof entrepreneurs and capitalists rather than thegeneral public itself. This is an importantdistinction because while the commoditisationliterature has successfully raised awareness ofthe importance of local consumer needs, it hasnot sufficiently addressed the role played byenterprises or capitalists in catering to theseneeds. The case studies in this paper advance

this latter perspective. They are not intendedto represent all forms of tourism development;instead they illustrate two different examplesof attempts by local agencies (governmentauthorities and capitalists) to negotiate thetourist-Singaporean divide and the divergentoutcomes of cultural commoditisation.

The empirical discussion relies primarily onqualitative data obtained from informantinterviews with heritage entrepreneurs. All theinterviews focused on the way local enterprisespackage a cultural site for tourist consumptionand the way Singaporeans’ needs have eitherbeen addressed or marginalised throughcorporate development. At the time of thesurvey (July-September 1995), there wereseven boutique hotels, six in the Central Area(Table 1; Figure 1). As most of the hotels areprivately owned, interviews were conductedwith their owners. Four hotels participatedwhile the others declined. In the case of theRaffles Hotel where an interview was denied,I spoke instead with the assistant marketingmanager of Raffles International Limited, theorganisation responsible for marketing the

TABLE 1. BOUTIQUE HOTELS IN SINGAPORE: A CLASSIFICATION

NAME OF SIZE LOCATION PRICE THEME OR OWNERSHIPHOTEL (NUMBER OF RANGE DECOR CONCEPT PATTERN

ROOMS)

Albert Court 136 fringe of Little S$170-280 Peranakan (Straits- Far-East OrganisationIndia Malaysian)

Chancellor 34 Joo Chiat S$88 - 188 modern (conserved privately ownedshophouse) (Henry Neo)

Chinatown 42 Tanjong Pagar S$120 - 160 modern (conserved privately-owned(Chinatown) shophouse) (Anita Tang)

The Duxton 49 suites Tanjong Pagar S$280 - 450 British-Colonial privately-owned (Chinatown) (conserved shophouse) (Esther Su and

Margaret Wong)Inn of the Sixth 28 Telok Ayer S$130 - 500 period-Chinese privately-owned (Lin Happiness 66 (by 1997) (Chinatown) (conserved shophouse) Chung Ming)Raffles 108 suites Colonial and S$600 - 6,000 1930s Colonial Raffles Hotel (1886)

Civic District Pte. Ltd. (operated byRaffles InternationalLimited)

The Royal 79 Tanjong Pagar S$125 - 200 art-deco (conserved privately-owned Peacock (Chinatown) shophouse) (owner unknown)

Note: All information was correct at the time of the survey (July 1995).

52 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM8

Figure 1. Location of boutique hotels and Bugis Street.

project. For the study of street activities, Ifocused on a particular site popular withtourists and locals - Bugis Street - andinterviews were sought with the operationsmanager of Bugis Street Management Pte. Ltd.and the managing director of a coach tourcompany which brings visitors to Bugis Streetregularly. Informant interviews weresupplemented by secondary data sourcesgleaned from press clippings and past researchsurveys on tourism, particularly those dealingwith public attitudes towards heritage projects(for example Lee, 1992).

THE COMMODITISATION OFHERITAGE AND THENEGOTIATION OF TOURIST-LOCAL NEEDS

The two case studies below, of boutique hotelsand street activities, illustrate the dual role ofheritage as tourist attraction and local resource.The discussion reveals that the tourist-localdivide is often traversed but with differingoutcomes: a possible alienation of locals onthe one hand and a concerted attempt at


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM9

embracing the needs of the community on theother.

Adaptive re-use and the boutiquehotel phenomenonOne trend emerging from the conservationmovement is the establishment of boutiquehotels in the 1990s. A boutique hotel may bedefined as a modest-sized establishment,usually with less than 100 guest rooms,catering to corporate executives and travellerswishing for an alternative experience. Theyboast a cosy residential ambience, a high staff-guest ratio and “combine old world charm withmodern luxury services” (The Straits Times,17 June 1991). Of the seven boutique hotelscovered in this survey, all but the Raffles Hotelwere the result of the adaptive re-use of oldshophouses/buildings and the gentrification ofethnic precincts. These hotels mark a radicaldeparture from the original land uses andexemplify the tensions between the old and the

new through the imposition of tourist-spacesin local landscapes.

The commoditisation thesis alleges thattourism development marginalises locals fromtheir very own landscape. In Singapore,boutique hotels may be construed as cateringto the needs and comforts of travellers ratherthan the locals living in and around theconservation district. This is best exemplifiedby The Royal Peacock and Chinatown hotelslocated in the midst of a residential area inKeong Saik Road/Teck Lim Road surroundedby numerous activities still untouched bygentrification. The glossy facades of the hotelsare a study in contrast from the helter-skelterenvirons of Chinatown (Plates 1 & 2). In asurvey of Singaporeans’ receptiveness towardsthe conversion of shophouses into hotels, Lee(1992:137) revealed that 52.2 per cent wereagainst the idea while 34.6 per cent welcomedit. Among the reasons given by the former

Plate 1. The Royal Peacock Hotel is a study of contrast to its neighbouring shophousesalong Keong Saik Road (see Plate 2).

54 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM10

included the need to “retain the old flavour andatmosphere of these places” and the fear thatlocal residents might be displaced (Lee,1992:138-39). As Lee reasons, Singaporeansfeel that conservation must go “beyond justphysical buildings and tourism development”and should be undertaken to create a “sense of‘place’ and cultural roots for Singaporeans”(Lee, 1992:140).

Although conservation tries to marry theneeds of tourists with locals, this policy isapplied on a case by case basis depending onthe locality. In Keong Saik Road, themanagers/owners of the hotels are aware ofthe disparity between the new and old but theydefend conservation here as an alternative todemolition, and adaptive re-use as preferableto the traditional activities and tenants that onceinhabited the buildings. This point is best putacross by Renata Mowbray, then generalmanager of The Royal Peacock:

I would be the first to put forward thischarge [that conservation robs the placeof its original residents and activities]and say that such areas become “overrestored”. But it’s either this or totaldemolition. Boutique hotels andsouvenir shops are inevitable becausethey are tied to the property marketwhere each shophouse fetches over amillion dollars.... [besides,] Keong SaikRoad has mainly dilapidatedshophouses which were used asbrothels and frequented by thosevisiting prostitutes. Many who bemoanthe loss of Chinatown probably nevervisit the place anyway but gentrificationwould draw them back (personalinterview, 1995).

Once brothels, The Royal Peacock andChinatown Hotel buildings today continue tobe surrounded by similar activities in one of

Plate 2. Pre-conservation shophouses along Keong Saik Road.


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM11

Singapore’s foremost red-light districts. Thederelict structures and tawdry image of KeongSaik and Teck Lim Roads have become adisincentive for families staying there. At thesame time, peculiarly, this image adds to theintrigue of the area because tourists find theplace colourful and naughtily interesting. Forthis reason, Anita Tang, general manager ofthe Chinatown Hotel, sees very little conflictbetween the intrusions of the new upon the oldand between the image of a red-light districtand a glitzy heritage inn:

Conservation has done good to the areabecause previously the place was alldilapidated. As for Singaporeanshaving a sense of affiliation toChinatown, it’s only the few oldresidents living here, and they areprepared to leave anyway ... We feelTanjong Pagar is rich in culture. Thismay be a red-light area but that addscolour to the place. The “funny people”know we are a serious business so theydon’t come to interfere (personalinterview, 1995).

Adaptive re-use rids the locality of itsunsavoury activities, improves the structure ofbuildings and regenerate what were previously“zones of discard”. At the same time, historyand collective memory are sanitised to attractvisitors and boost the tourism economy.Gentrification might have altered the originallook and activities in the area but, accordingto Mowbray, has also “encourage[d]Singaporeans back to discover their roots”.

The gentrification of Keong Saik and TeckLim Roads has not compromised the welfareof remaining residents. Today the two roadsare being rapidly transformed with the openingof three more hotels (The Keong Saik Hotel,Tropical Hotel and The Regal Inn) as well asseveral restaurants and interior design offices.Concessions have been made to ensure thatthese “alien” enterprises do not interrupt theoriginal lifestyle of residents. For example,the two new restaurants Cafe Operetta and

Streeters Wine Bar and Grill have beenprohibited by the Liquors Licensing Board toserve alcohol in their outdoor premises.Although no reason was given for the ban, itis generally felt that a thriving pub scene wouldattract a boisterous crowd that mightcompromise public safety and contribute tonoise pollution. According to John Chang,head of media relations in the Singapore PoliceForce:

Keong Saik Road is a relatively quietarea, especially in the evening, and ifpubs are allowed to operate there, thenoise generated may cause annoyanceto the residents. Rowdiness anddrunken brawls, which are associatedwith pub operations, may threaten thesafety of the residents ( The StraitsTimes, 17 December 1996).

While outdoor cafes are prohibited from sellingalcohol, indoor establishments such as theButterfly Cafe in The Royal Peacock are notaffected. The need to contain noise androwdiness within closed quarters, and thebanning of outdoor pub activities are measuresdesigned with residents in mind. While suchmeasures impinge upon the rights of therestauranteurs and visitors to the area, they arenonetheless imposed and stringently upheld forthe benefit of the neighbourhood. UnlikeTanjong Pagar, therefore, where on-siteresidents have all but shifted out and wherethe pub scene is vibrant (Lau, 1993), KeongSaik Street’s nightlife is sedate and quiet.

Akin to the alleged isolation of locals is thenotion of a tourist enclave. This is a particularproblem which the Raffles Hotel has had toovercome (Plate 3). When the Rafflesreopened in 1991 after a S$160 millionrestoration project, the 104 suites-only hotelwas proclaimed the most luxurious in the city,and with rooms going between S$650-6,000per night, the most expensive as well. TheRaffles Hotel was marketed as a world-famoushistoric landmark targeting as its guests the“top end of the corporate market - the upper

56 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM12

end of the leisure-travel market” for whom“money is no object” (The Business Times, 17September 1991). The exclusivity of the hotelhas been regarded by some as lacking a localidentity - a place which “does not seem tobelong to the average class of Singaporeans”(Teo & Huang, 1995:610). In the words of anarchitect, the hotel exudes a “stiff and perfect-to-the-point-of-clinical atmosphere that makesone feel that one will probably be reprimandedfor shifting the ashtray” (The Straits Times, 28February 1992). What was once a colonialhangout is now considered a tourist enclavewhich continues that “grand old tradition ofimperial hype” (The Straits Times, 18 October1991). As a journalist wryly asked before thecommencement of restoration, “is the 102-yearold hotel really Singaporean enough to beworth restoring?” (The Straits Times, 15 March1989).

That the Raffles Hotel chose to target theupper end of the tourist audience is entirely a

case of niche marketing. What is interesting,however, was that its developer and marketingagent had anticipated the problems of“niching” and deliberately incorporated in itsrestoration plan a shopping gallery annexedto the back of the hotel. Simply known asRaffles, the architectural style of this newthree-storey building is identical to the hotel’sand comprises a range of shops, cafeterias, amuseum and a Victorian-style playhouseaimed at the general public (Plate 4). Its ampleoutdoor dining area and landscaped gardensare also open to everybody. This dual-marketstrategy - Raffles Hotel for upmarket touristsand Raffles for the common folk - effectivelycreates a multi-functional site. According toS.L. Chandran of DBS Land, the hotel and itsshopping complex “will basically cater for twoconflicting crowds” with their architecturalstyles serving as an integral link (The BusinessTimes, 25-26 March 1989). Referring toshopping and dining at Raffles, Jennie Chua,general manager of the hotel further pointed

Plate 3. The Raffles Hotel for upmarket tourists is annexed to the Raffles.


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM13

out that while “Not everybody will be able tofind a room here [at the Raffles Hotel] ... [but]almost everybody can have a Rafflesexperience” (The Business Times, 17September 1991). Although there are nostatistics to confirm the number of tourists andSingaporeans passing through, James Ong, theassistant marketing manager of RafflesInternational Limited, claimed that theoptimum market mix in any heritage projectis 60 per cent visitors and 40 per cent locals(personal interview, 1995). Heritagedevelopment should augment Singapore’stourism potential while developing local pride,and “tourist traps” must be avoided because“tourists like to go where locals go” (personalinterview, 1995). For this reason, the foodoutlets at Raffles are diversely ranged to caterto the different tastes and budgets of locals andtourists.

The dual-market strategy at the RafflesHotel is also exemplified by the other inns. TheRoyal Peacock, Inn of the Sixth Happiness andThe Duxton depend heavily on locals to sustaintheir food and beverage outlets. Located inthe Central Area, the hotels marketaggressively to attract lunch and dinner crowdsfrom adjacent Shenton Way, Singapore’sbusiness and financial district. The symbolicimportance attached to heritage is indicated bythe new-meets-old, East-meets-West ambiencewhich these hotels purport as their sellingpoint. The “Philip Starck meets Chinatown”theme at The Royal Peacock, the traditionalOriental ambience in the Inn of the SixthHappiness and the refined European eleganceof The Duxton are marketing themes aimed atlocal yuppies and Western tourists. Much likeBritain’s townhouse hotels (Brooke, 1995) orthe small historic inns of Europe (Barrett,

Plate 4. The Raffles - a shopping, food and entertainment complex geared towards thegeneral public.

58 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM14

1986), Singapore’s shophouse hotelssymbolise a global trend in alternative “period”accommodation. Heritage serves as a markerof exclusivity and distinction, and acompetitive tool in differentiating such hotelsfrom others. Towards this end, different decorconcepts have been selected to conveyauthenticity and difference (Table 1).Following Silver’s concept of “chic travel”,boutique hotels offer a touch of luxury off thebeaten track and are “sold to an elitist clientelewho come to view their experiences as moreauthentic than those of mass tourists, while alsomore luxurious, and perhaps cleaner, thanalternative travel” (Silver, 1993:315).

Finally, the power of the local is also seenin the ownership patterns of hotels. Unlike thelarge modern hotels of the 1970s which wereowned by foreign companies (Ow, 1984), thetrend towards boutique establishments marksa shift towards local ownership (The RoyalPeacock, The Duxton and Chancellor hotels)and family-based entrepreneurship (Inn of theSixth Happiness and Chinatown Hotel) (Table1). The boutique inns are not franchises oftransnational hotel chains; in fact, in somecases, they even represent the flagshipestablishment of a potential new chain of inns.The Lin family who owns the Inn of the SixthHappiness, for example, have since expandedtheir concept of the Chinese-heritage hotel toMalaysia under the Asiatic House (or A-House) Group. Similarly, the owner/managerof the Chinatown has further plans fordevelopment in Vietnam and Indonesia. Theboutique hotel phenomenon thus offers aunique opportunity for small localentrepreneurs to flourish in the mega-tourismindustry. This is in line with the STPB’s goalof developing a regional “wing” and anexternal economy for the tourism industry(STPB, 1996).

Heritage re-invention and thetransformation of street activitiesAnother example of the commoditisation ofheritage is offered by the case of streetactivities which, over the course of time, have

been banned, resurrected and re-introduced astourist attractions. As part of the drive towardsmodernisation in the 1960s and 1970s, manysquatter areas in Singapore’s Central Areawere demolished along with their streetactivities which included bazaars, outdoor wetmarkets as well as informal dining andshopping places. This policy was essentialbecause the state wanted to impart an imageof “urban planning, government control andmodernity” (Savage, 1992:19). The state’scommitment to urban modernisation, however,was softened in part by the 1983 tourism crisisand the Tourism Task Force’s (TTF) view thatSingapore was losing many historic areas ofinterest. The TTF also mentioned revivingstreet life as an integral aspect in touristpromotion (MTI, 1984:15). Reviving streetactivities, however, posed certain challenges.The government realised the importance of thepicturesque “old” on the one hand, and theneed to impart an image of modernity befittinga newly independent state on the other. Hence,while tourists may be intrigued by the“surviving aspects of the antique, the ethnicand the primitive”, these may also be the“traditional and regressive elements ofindigenous culture which the nationalgovernment is desperately trying to reform (orforget)” (Turner & Ash, 1975:140). Therevival of street activities thus illustrates thedilemma of catering to tourists and locals, andI shall substantiate this argument by lookingat the pasar malam and the re-invention ofBugis Street.

The pasar malam (literally “night market”in Malay) is an informal outdoor shoppingevent which caters to and attracts itineranthawkers, food stalls, makeshift shops andSingaporeans looking for bargains. Althoughtourists patronise the pasar malams, they arecertainly not “staged” for visitors and makeno pretense at being so. Pasar malams areusually organised on public roads closed forthe evenings to vehicles. In 1975, the Ministryof Environment (MOE) began phasing outnight markets and, in 1978, banned themaltogether on the basis that they caused traffic


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM15

congestion and pollution of public streets, andposed a health hazard through their sale of fooditems. In Chinatown, 700 hawkers were shiftedindoors into the new Chinatown Complex in1983 while in Little India food stalls anditinerant hawkers were rehoused in the multi-storey Zhu Jiao Centre.

With the onset of the tourism crisis in 1983and the TTF’s encouragement to revive streetactivities, policies banning night markets weregradually reversed. In 1985, barely one and ahalf years after they were banned fromChinatown, the STPB together with the KretaAyer Citizen’s Consultative Committeeresurrected outdoor hawking as part of theChinese New Year celebrations. A festival oflights was organised and foodstalls sellingtraditional tidbits erected. The revival ofoutdoor activities, however, did not signal anendorsement of pollutive activities and theirattendant problems. In an effort to upholdpublic hygiene, grassroots leaders proposed tothe MOE limits they would voluntarily adhereto. These included a ban on cars, participationof only 200 stall holders, sale of pre-cookedfood and the use of disposable plates andutensils (The Straits Times, 7 January 1986).The STPB also organised similar outdooractivities in Little India and Geylang Seraiduring the Deepavali and Hari Raya Puasafestivities respectively.

While the resurrection of night markets wasaimed at residents, there have been occasionswhen they were geared exclusively towardsvisitors. In 1985, for example, the STPBobtained clearance from the MOE to revivepasar malams in the pristine outdoorcompound of the Singapore Handicraft Centre.A number of changes were introduced such asthe sale of souvenirs and a ban on food itemsand “old” products. This move was latercriticised because the raison d’etre of pasarmalams was the availability of secondhandgoods and food items for the local populace inan informal and often chaotic outdoor setting.Most uncharacteristically, therefore, the sceneat the handicraft centre was sedate with no

noisy haggling and a limited variety of stallsmanned by well dressed vendors (The StraitsTimes, 8 April 1985). A spokesperson for theSTPB justified this oversight by saying:

We are not the People’s Association,concerned with organising things forlocals. We are the Singapore TouristPromotion Board, so when organisingsomething, we must have the tourist asthe main objective (The Straits Times,16 June 1985).

In May 1986, however, the STPB beganintroducing food stalls and encouragingvendors to sell household goods and localitems. When this proved popular with touristsand residents, more pasar malams wererevived for specific tourist events such as theconvention of the American Society of TravelAgents in September 1986 and the MissUniverse Pageant in May 1987 (The StraitsTimes, 21 July 1987). As Sharon Wong,STPB’s divisional director of tourism servicesconceded, “we have found from our researchthat a place must be first popular with the localcommunity before it begins attracting thetourists” (The Straits Times, 23 May 1986).What were once spontaneous street activitiescatering to locals have thus been transformedinto state sanctioned events orchestrated atspecific sites and for tourist-related purposes.Singaporeans nonetheless welcome, the returnof night markets because they evoke nostalgicmemories, provide an added source of incomefor merchants, and generate amusement fortourists without explicitly offering the latterany “preferential treatment” (Lee, 1992:142).The changing forms of this particular heritageproduct illustrate that cultures and traditionsare not static, and locals can indeed bepersuaded to accept state-induced and tourism-related modifications.

On the other hand, the return of theinfamous Bugis Street has been the outcomeof policy reversals targeted principally attourists. From the 1940s, Bugis Street was wellknown as a nocturnal dining and shopping

60 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM16

street reputed for its availability of cheap beerand Chinese food and the added risqueatmosphere provided by prostitutes andflamboyantly dressed transvestites (Lim,1979:53-54). In particular, the parade oftransvestites which began every midnighteither soliciting for clients or taking photoswith visitors for S$5 a copy became BugisStreet’s claim to infamy. Although it wasnever promoted by the STPB, Bugis Street wasrated one of Asia’s top ten attractions (TheStraits Times, 8 November 1993). As S.K. Lee,then project manager of Bugis StreetDevelopment said:

... flamboyant transvestites were aparadigm of a product we didn’t know[what] to do with. While thephenomenon lasted, it was somethingof an official embarrassment. For thetourists who thronged the area, part ofthe charm of Bugis Street came from itbeing a social pimple on clean, greenand apparently straight-laced Singapore(The Straits Times, 13 July 1986).

In a country which banned jukeboxes, long hairand later chewing gum, Bugis Street was anunusual attraction, “a venue where theparticipants could engage, albeit fleetingly, indeviant behaviour in a highly structured anddisciplined society” (Kuah, 1994:180).

In 1985, the state demolished Bugis Streetto make way for the development of a MassRapid Transit Station and in an effort to ridwhat it perceived as a “blemish on the smoothcheek of a garden city” (The Straits Times, 6October 1985). This move was widelycondemned by members of the tourismindustry. Several hotels and travel agentspleaded with the STPB for the return of BugisStreet, and the STPB in turn brought the matterto the Ministry of National Development. Ina “surprise change of mind” (The Straits Times,9 October 1985), the ministry approved plansto reconstruct Bugis Street on a plot of landon the opposite side of Victoria Street just 120m from the original (Figure 1) because of its

enormous tourism potential. Unlike itspredecessor which comprised independenthawkers and stall holders, the new Bugis Street(originally renamed Bugis Square but has sincereverted to its old name) has been developedand managed by commercial enterprises.Bugis Square, which opened in December1989 at a cost of S$15 million, is an exactreplica of the old street surrounded by sixblocks of low-rise buildings collectivelynamed Bugis Village (Plate 5). In keeping withthe old-world ambience, street furniture andcertain architectural features were replicated,and fortune tellers, shoeshine boys, clogmakers as well as the original food and drinkoperators from Bugis Street were enticed back.Indeed, much emphasis was placed on“making the new place look old” (Kuah,1994:179).

While Bugis Square was meticulous insimulating the ambience of Bugis Street, therewas to be no concession for dirty streets, poorsanitation and the transvestites. For the firsttime, therefore, Bugis Street was promoted bythe STPB in its guidebook as “a new versionof Asia’s most famous outdoor food andentertainment spot ... an atmosphere that’s evenbetter than the old ... [with] a more seriousattitude towards hygiene with modernkitchens” (STPB, 1991:26-28). Transvestiteswere unwelcome because of the need toprovide clean family entertainment andmaintain a wholesome atmosphere. Hence, itsdevelopers have promoted the place as a“‘vibrant haunt, a street that never sleeps’,where one can wine, dine and have street partyfun and games without the transvestites” (TheStraits Times, 8 November 1993). The newBugis Street is very much, therefore, acompromise to “balance [the] need ofattracting tourists and maintaining awholesome atmosphere that will appeal toSingaporeans” (The Straits Times, 18 April1992).

Since reopening in 1991, however,patronage has been extremely poor. Almostimmediately, the transvestites were broached


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM17

as a possible strategy to draw back the crowds;the proponents argued that the transvestites arethe star attractions and should be reinstatedalong with the other accoutrements of theplace. The government thought otherwise.When two spontaneous transvestite showswere staged in Bugis Square in January 1992,the law came down heavily on thoseresponsible (The Straits Times, 8 November1993). Yet, the STPB was not aboveorganising a similar show during a luncheonit hosted for the 41st Annual Conference ofthe Pacific Area Travel Association (PATA)in Hong Kong and again at a SingaporeAirlines’ (SIA) party celebrating its inauguralflight to South Africa in 1992. Explained aSTPB spokesperson:

The whole idea was to draw theattention of those in the tourist trade tothe fact that Bugis Street is back. Itsucceeded in creating publicity amongthe travel trade to promote Singaporeas a fun and entertaining place (TheStraits Times, 18 April 1992).

In yet another turn of events in April 1992,the management of Bugis Street with full stateendorsement decided to hire four transsexualsas “customer relations officers” to explain thehistory and nightlife of Bugis Street to visitors.The transsexuals were to be employed on amonth basis and watched by plainclothespolice through close-circuit television (TheStraits Times, 20 April 1992). However,following an avalanche of criticisms pertainingto the authorities’ “crass commercialism” andits “coarse pandering to a kind of voyeurism”(The Business Times, 30-31 May 1992), thepolicy was rescinded after two weeks. Today,the only memory of the transvestites is evokedthrough the jokes and skits performed nightlyin the cabaret Boom Boom Room located inBugis Square. As Leong (1989:371) aptlynotes, “Bugis Street is an example of a touristarea that falls or rises according to shiftingpolitical and economic interests”.

The transvestite debate is by no means over.When Ivan Tan, then operations manager ofBugis Street Management, was interviewed in

Plate 5. The old and the new are fused in Bugis Street.

62 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM18

1995, he claimed that plans were underway toreintroduce transvestites as participants of“cultural dance troops” and to bring theirperformances onto public stages. As culturaldancers, he hoped the government would closea blind eye and that tourists and locals will beattracted. The “transvestite dilemma” amplifiesthe radical changes that have occurred in BugisStreet and the difficulty in replicating“originality”. The residents who used to livein Bugis Street have now relocated and manyof the original hawkers have fled because ofincreased rents.1 The spontaneous chaos ofOld Bugis Street has now been replaced witha bureaucratic set-up geared entirely toattracting shoppers/diners and making a profit(Kuah, 1994:180). While Singaporeans stillshop and eat in Bugis Street, its local identityhas waned:

The new Bugis Street, in the eyes ofthe local population, is reinvented forthe tourists. Places and events inventedfor the tourists involve a sense ofartificiality. Like so many sociallyconstructed places, it represents, to thelocals, an unauthentic manufacturedheritage no matter how good thereproduction is. And this manufacturedheritage does not belong to them. Tomany locals, the old represents thetotality of life itself where the good andthe bad came as a package deal. Butthe reinvented one lacks this sentimentand is an empty shell. It also serves tohighlight the great divide betweenperceptions of what is Singaporean andwhat is not. In short, Bugis Street nolonger belongs to the people; it has beenappropriated by the STPB for thetourists (Kuah, 1994:181).

The Pannell Kerr Forster Plan echoed a similarpoint when it warned that the old Bugis Streethad a “difficult-to-duplicate mix of surprise,

mystery and naughtiness” and the lesson to belearnt is that “people create their own peopleplaces, not planners or ‘producers’” (PannellKerr Forster, 1986:V26-27).

Bugis Street, however, may become morepopular in the future. Presently, three groupsof patrons are identified: the morning/daycrowds comprising local shoppers and diners(Plate 6); the evening crowds comprisingtourists and locals; and the midnight crowd ofcurious visitors and single men (Kuah,1994:176). According to Ivan Tan, touristsdominate weekdays whereas Singaporeansform the bulk of weekend patrons. ComparingBugis Street to Newton Food Centre, agovernment-built outdoor hawker centre, Tanconfided: “Newton suffered for the first fiveyears but after that, Singaporeans began toaccept the place and saw it less as a touristattraction. We hope that in time Singaporeanstoo will accept Bugis Street as their own”(personal interview, 1995). Leslie Choudhurywhose tour company regularly brings visitorsto Bugis Street similarly contends thatconserved districts may not initially “look agedor anything, but in a couple of years ... [they]will strangely enough acquire a morecomfortable look of authenticity” (personalinterview, 1993). Urban conservation inSingapore does not entail the preservation ofbuildings “unaltered, embalmed, or made intomuseum pieces” (Burke, 1976:133) butinvolves a dynamic process whereby buildingsare architecturally maintained but functionallyaltered for contemporary needs. Heritage ismalleable because “[n]o culture or society canbe static; [and] new cultural products emergeand, therefore, emergent authenticity (Cohen,1988a) is a valid and realistic process withinthe context of tourism” (Sharpley, 1994:136,original emphasis). As a commodity, BugisStreet’s local identity may strengthen ratherthan diminish with time.

CONCLUSIONWe often think of attractions and tourismpolicies as targeting the needs and interests of

1 In late 1995, for example, the monthly rental charge fora single pushcart stall was S$1,350 while that for a shopspace in Bugis Village was S$3,500.


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM19

foreign visitors. This is not an inaccurateassumption when the welfare of the localcommunity is also acknowledged in theprocess, a perspective often overlooked. Inthis paper, I have argued that heritagedevelopment is a dynamic process whichtraverses the tourist-local divide, andsubstantiated the argument along three linesof enquiry, using the case studies of boutiquehotels and street activities.

First, the notion that heritage developmentis necessarily dictated by tourists’ desires waschallenged. Local factors are implicated in theheritage turn too as evidenced by thegovernment’s urban conservation programmein the 1980s, and the transvestite dilemma inBugis Street which unfolded amidst competingclaims by tourists and Singaporeans.Unquestionably, heritage products like theboutique hotels and Bugis Street are popularwith tourists but this does not preclude thepossibility of Singaporeans functioning as

consumers too. While the hotels cater to localexecutives working in the vicinity, Bugis Streetis an increasingly popular shopping and diningdestination for many locals. Heritageconservation is simultaneously propelled bylocal demands for cultural and leisure pursuitsas well as tourism. The commoditisationprocess should therefore be viewed not somuch as a tourism-induced phenomenon butthe outcome of the ebb and flow of powerbetween contending exogenous forces andendogenous factors (Nash, 1989).

Second, this paper also dismissed the notionof inauthenticity by arguing that heritage isdynamic and ever changing. In the case ofboutique hotels, the gentrification ofChinatown and the adaptive re-use of oldshophouses have not led to cultural erosion;on the contrary, they celebrate local heritagealbeit in a new and different form. Theeradication of brothels along Keong Saik Roadand the infusion of enterprises and food outlets

Plate 6. Bugis Street’s foodstalls and shopping bazaar are becoming increasingly popularwith Singaporeans.

64 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM20

have opened up what was once a seedyneighbourhood to increasing number ofSingaporeans. The dynamic nature of heritageis also exemplified by the changing form ofstreet activities. Both pasar malams and BugisStreet were originally frowned upon anddemolished but were later reintroduced andtransformed into attractions. Spontaneousactivities have thus become state sanctionedevents organised under strictly regulatedconditions, yet local patronage at these eventshas increased rather than declined. Localsocieties are “adaptive and resilient” towardstourism’s intrusion and it would be inaccurateto portray commoditisation as bearing onlynegative effects (Wood, 1993: 55). The newpasar malams and Bugis Street are popularbecause of their skilful blend of modernity,cleanliness and “authenticity”, an indicationof the successful re-invention of tradition.

Finally, heritage commoditisation isportrayed as a negotiation process controlledby local agencies concerned with bridging thetourist-local divide. This paper focused ongovernment authorities and heritageentrepreneurs who are in a unique position tomediate between different market needs andsteer a course through conflicting demands(Chang et al. 1996). In urban planning inWestern Europe, for example, Burtenshaw etal. (1991: 218) have argued that tourismplanning policies fulfill “reconciliatory” rolesaimed at creating a viable tourism product anda pleasant working and living environment.This has also been the case of Singapore asevidenced by the Raffles Hotel restorationwhich integrates the needs of locals with thoseof upmarket tourists, and the STPB policieson heritage conservation which targetsSingaporeans as its beneficiaries. In landscarce Singapore, heritage sites serve as“multifunctional urban space[s]” cateringto”multimotivated user[s]” (Ashworth &Tunbridge, 1990:90), and planning authoritiesand tourism enterprises strive to traverse thetourist-local rift.

Conceiving of tourism as the dominantforce which impacts local societies anddenigrates cultural forms yields an incompletepicture of the tourism development process.Tourism is only one contributor to socio-cultural change, and the role played by localfactors must be acknowledged along with thepositive aspects of tourist development.Writing in the context of ethnic tourism andcommoditisation in rural China, Oakes(1995:10) echoes this view when he arguedthat tourism is “an adopted component of alocal culture’s internal dynamics of on-goingchange, rather than a force bearing down uponlocals while remaining beyond their grasp”.As the Singapore case studies similarly testify,the adaptive re-use of old shophouses and there-invention of street activities have beeninspired by reasons other than tourism, and thelocal community benefits from these processes.Heritage commoditisation thus embodiesmultiple goals, serves diverse audiences andeffect different outcomes in different places.Future studies in tourism must thereforeaddress the broader context in whichconservation and development occur in orderto arrive at a more nuanced understanding ofthe nexus between heritage entrepreneurshipand tourism.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Professors Jan Lundgren,Simon Milne and Jeanne Wolfe of McGillUniversity, Montreal, for their helpfulcomments on earlier drafts of this paper. Anyomissions and mistakes are solely myresponsibility.

REFERENCES

Ashworth, G. (1990) ‘The historic cities ofGroningen: which is sold to whom?’, in G.Ashworth and B. Goodall (eds.), MarketingTourism Places, London: Routledge, 138-55.

Ashworth, G. & Voogd, H. (1990) ‘Can placesbe sold for tourism?’, in G. Ashworth and


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM21

B. Goodall (eds.), Marketing TourismPlaces, London: Routledge, 1-16.

Ashworth, G.J. & Larkham, P.J. (eds.) (1994)Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Cultureand Identity in the New Europe, London:Routledge.

Ashworth, G.J. & Tunbridge, J.E. (1990) TheTourist-Historic City, London: BelhavenPress.

Barrett, P. (1986) Old Buildings - NewAccommodation, London: British TravelEducation Trust.

Britton, S. (1991) ‘Tourism, capital, and place:towards a critical geography of tourism’,Environment and Planning D: Society andSpace, 9(4), 451-78.

Brooke, M. (1995) ‘Small wonders’, The Peak,[month uncited], 36-46.

Burke, G. (1976) Townscapes, Harmonds-worth: Pelican Books.

Burtenshaw, D., Bateman, M. & Ashworth, G.(1991) The European City: A WesternPerspective, London: David FultonPublishers.

Chang, T.C. (1997) ‘From ‘Instant Asia’ to‘Multi-faceted Jewel’: Urban imagingstrategy and tourism development inSingapore’, Urban Geography, 18(6), inpress.

Chang, T.C., Milne, S., Fallon, D. &Pohlmann, C. (1996) ‘Urban heritagetourism: The global-local nexus’, Annalsof Tourism Research, 23(2), 284-305.

Chen, A. (1995) Urban Conservation andHeritage Tourism: A Case Study of ClarkeQuay, unpubl. Honours Thesis,Department of Geography, NationalUniversity of Singapore.

Cohen, E. (1988) ‘Authenticity andcommoditization in tourism’, Annals ofTourism Research, 16(3), 371-86.

Greenwood, D.J. (1977) ‘Culture by thepound: An anthropological perspective ontourism as cultural commoditization’, inV. Smith (ed.), Hosts and Guests: The

Anthropology of Tourism, Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 129-47.

Greenwood, D.J. (1989) ‘Culture by thepound: an anthropological perspective ontourism as cultural commodification’, in V.Smith (ed.), Hosts and Guests: TheAnthropology of Tourism, Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 171-85.

Harvey, D. (1987) ‘Flexible accumulationthrough urbanisation: Reflections on “post-modernism” in the American city’,Antipode, 19(3), 260-86.

Harvey, D. (1993) ‘From space to place andback again: Reflections on the conditionof post-modernity’, in J. Bird, B. Curtis,T. Putnam, G. Robertson & L. Tickner(eds.), Mapping the Futures: LocalCultures, Global Change, London:Routledge, 3-29.

Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry:Britain in a Climate of Decline, London:Methuen.

Hitchcock, M., King, V.T. & Parnwell, M.(1993) ‘Tourism in Southeast Asia:Introduction’, in M. Hitchcock, V.T. Kingand M. Parnwell (eds.), Tourism inSoutheast Asia, London: Routledge, 1-31.

Iyer, P. (1988) Video Night in Kathmandu: AndOther Reports From the Not-So-Far-East,New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Kearns, G. & Philo, C. (eds.) (1994) SellingPlaces: The City as Cultural Capital, Pastand Present, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kenny, J.T. (1995) ‘Making Milwaukeefamous: Cultural capital, urban image, andthe politics of place’, Urban Geography,16(5), 440-58.

Kong, L. & Yeoh, B.S.A. (1994) ‘Urbanconservation in Singapore: A survey ofstate policies and popular attitudes’, UrbanStudies, 31(2) , 247-65.

Kuah, K.E. (1994) ‘Bugis Street in Singapore:Development, conservation and thereinvention of cultural landscape’, in M.Askew and W.S. Logan (eds.) CulturalIdentity and Urban Change in Southeast

66 Chang

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM22

Asia: Interpretative Essays, Geelong:Deakin University Press, 167-85.

Lau, P.W.P. (1993) The Conservation ofTanjong Pagar: Public Attitudes and StatePolicies, unpubl. Honours Thesis,Department of Geography, NationalUniversity of Singapore.

Law, C.M. (1993) Urban Tourism: AttractingVisitors to Large Cities, London: MansellPublishing Limited.

Lee, E.K.Y. (1992) Host Acceptance ofTourists in Singapore, unpubl. HonoursThesis, Department of Geography,National University of Singapore.

Lee, H,T. (1991) ‘The conservation dilemma’,Mirror, 27(15), 1-4.

Leong, W.T. (1989) ‘Culture and the state:Manufacturing traditions for tourism’,Critical Studies in Mass Communications,6, 355-75.

Lim, V.C.H. (1979) A History of Tourism inSingapore 1950-1977, unpubl. HonoursThesis, Department of History, Universityof Singapore.

Liu, T.K. (1990) ‘Singapore’s experience inconservation’, paper presented at theInternational Symposium on Preservationand Modernisation of Historic Cities,Beijing, China, 15-18 August 1990.

Machlis, G. & Burch, W. (1983) ‘Relationsbetween strangers: Cycles of structure andmeaning in tourist systems’, TheSociological Review, 31(4), 666-92.

McKean, P. (1989) ‘Towards a theoreticalanalysis of tourism: Economic dualism andcultural involution in Bali’, in V. Smith(ed.), Hosts and Guests: The Anthropologyof Tourism, Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 119-38.

Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) (1984)Report of the Tourism Task Force,Singapore: MTI.

MTI (1986) Tourism Product DevelopmentPlan, Singapore: Ministry of Trade and

Industry and the Singapore TouristPromotion Board.

Nash, D. (1977) ‘Tourism as a form ofimperialism’, in V. Smith (ed.), Hosts andGuests. The Anthropology of Tourism,Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 33-47.

Nash D. (1989) ‘Tourism as a form ofimperialism’, in V. Smith (ed.), Hosts andGuests: The Anthropology of Tourism,Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 37-52.

Oakes, T. (1995) ‘Tourism in Guizhou: Senseof place and the commerce of authenticity’,unpubl. paper presented at the Associationof American Geographers’ 91st AnnualMeeting in Chicago, U.S.A., 14-18 March1995.

Ow, Y.P. (1984), Hotels in Singapore, unpubl.Honours Thesis, Department ofGeography, National University ofSingapore.

Pannell Kerr Forster (1986) TourismDevelopment in Singapore: A Report byPannell Kerr Forster, Singapore: ProductDevelopment Division, Singapore TouristPromotion Board.

Roberts, S.M. & Schein, L. (1993) ‘Theentrepreneurial city: Fabricating urbandevelopment in Syracuse, New York’, TheProfessional Geographer, 45(1), 21-33.

Savage, V. (1992) ‘Street culture in colonialSingapore’, in B.H. Chua & N. Edwards(eds.), Public Space: Design, Use andManagement, Singapore: SingaporeUniversity Press, 11-23.

Sharpley, R. (1994) Tourism, Tourists andSociety, Huntington: ELM Publications.

Short, J.R. (1996) The Urban Order: AnIntroduction to Cities, Culture, and Power,Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

Short, J.R., Benton, L.M., Luce, W.B. &Walton, J. (1993) ‘Reconstructing theimage of an industrial city’, Annals of the


CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM23

Association of American Geographers,83(2), 207-24.

Silver, I. (1993) ‘Marketing authenticity inThird World country’, Annals of TourismResearch, 20(2), 302-18.

Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (STPB)(1989) Annual Report 1988/1989,Singapore: STPB.

STPB (1991) Singapore Official Guide,Singapore: STPB.

STPB (1996) Tourism 21: Vision of a TourismCapital, Singapore: Singapore TouristPromotion Board and the National TourismPlan Committees.

Tay, K.S. (1991) ‘Heritage conservation -political and social implications: The caseof Singapore’, Singapore Institute ofArchitects Journal, March/April no. 165,37-41.

Teo, P. & Huang, S. (1995) ‘Tourism andheritage conservation in Singapore’,Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 589-615.

Teo, P. & Yeoh, B.S.A. (1997) ‘Remakinglocal heritage for tourism’, Annals ofTourism Research, 24(1), 192-213.

The Business Times, various issues, Singapore.

The Straits Times, various issues, Singapore.

Tunbridge, J.E. (1984) ‘Whose heritage toconserve? Cross-cultural reflections upon

Uzzell, D. (1989) Heritage Interpretation: TheNatural and Built Environment, London:Belhaven Press.

Wood, R. (1984) ‘Ethnic tourism, the state andcultural change in Southeast Asia’, Annalsof Tourism Research, 11(3), 353-74.

Wood, R. (1993) ‘Tourism, culture, and thesociology of development’, in M.Hitchcock, V.T. King & M. Parnwell(eds.), Tourism in Southeast Asia, London:Routledge, 48-70.

Yeoh, B.S.A. & Huang, S. (1996) ‘Theconservation-redevelopment dilemma inSingapore: The case of the Kampong GlamHistoric District’, Cities, 13(6), 411-22.

Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities,Cambridge: Blackwell.

68 Chang

political dominance and urban heritageconservation’, The Canadian Geographer,28(1), 171-80.

Turner, L. & Ash, J. (1975) The GoldenHordes: International Tourism and thePleasure Periphery, London: Constable.

Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)(1986) Conserving Our Remarkable Past,Singapore: URA.

Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure andTravel in Contemporary Societies, London:Sage Publications.

CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM24

Documents

Turismo Desarrollo Singapore