Tourism and heritage conservation in Singapore

Pergamon

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 589-615, 1995 Copyright @ 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0160-7383/95 $9.50 + .OO

0160-7383(95)00003-8

TOURISM AND HERITAGE CONSERVATION IN SINGAPORE Peggy Teo Shirlena Huang

National

University

of Singapore,

Singapore

Abstract: Using a survey of tourists and locals, this study investigates the success of Singapore’s Civic and Cultural District as a conservation project. The survey revealed that tourists were attracted by the facades of old colonial buildings that have been carefully restored. In contrast, Singaporeans attach a great deal more to activities and lifestyles within the district that have since been removed or have disappeared because of conservation. Planning authorities have concentrated mainly on the issue of economic viability and favor commercial activities such as retail and recreation/leisure. As such, Singaporeans feel that conservation in the district, because it “museumizes” or makes “elitist” to encourage tourism, has failed to preserve their heritage. Keywords: conservation, local heritage, planning, Singapore. R&urn& Le tourisme et la preservation du patrimoine B Singapour. BasC SW une enqu&te de touristes et d’habitants, cet article examine le succts du quartler Municipal et Culture1 comme projet de prCservation. Selon I’enqufte, les touristes sont attirCes par les faGades restaurCes des immeubles coloniaux. Par contre, les Singapouriens accordent beaucoup plus d’importance aux activitCs et aux styles de vie qui ont Et6 dCplac& g cause des efforts de prtservation. Le service de l’urbanisme a fixt son attention SW la viabilitC tconomique en favorisant des activitCs commmerciales comme le shopping, la r&Cation et les loisirs. Les Singapouriens estiment que la prCservation du quartier, ayant produit une sorte de muste ou quartier d’Clite afin d’encourager le tourisme, n’a pas rCussi B prCserver leur partrimoine. Mets-cl&: prCservation, patrimoine local, planification, Singapour.

INTRODUCTION Tourism is one of Singapore’s foremost industries. Despite some downturns, visitor arrivals to the island have been increasing at an average annual growth rate of 12 % since 1970. In 1990 alone, there were 5 million visitors. According to Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, in 1990 tourism contributed 6.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with receipts amounting to USs4.5 billion (STPB 1991:2). This phenomenal growth is tied to the popularity of the Southeast Asian region where the number of foreign visitors has doubled and receipts from tourism tripled in the last decade. For example, in the Philippines, tourism has become the second largest industry while in Indonesia, tourism is the fourth largest earner of foreign exchange, outstripping traditional items such as rubber and coffee. Even Vietnam Peggy Teo is Senior Lecturer and Shirlena Huang is Lecturer at the Department of Geography, National University of Singapore (Kent Ridge Cresent, Singapore 0511. E-mail: “[email protected]”). Besides tourism, their other research interest areas include population planning and issues on aging; and urban issues and the geography of gender, respectively. 589

590

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

has enjoyed an exponential growth in visitor arrivals, rising nine times from a meager 20,000 in 1986 to 187,000 in 1990 (Hitchcock, King and Parnwell 1993 : 1). Rising affluence in the Southeast Asian region, and better and cheaper facilities account for some of this growth, but it has also been suggested that Southeast Asia is a good alternative to longer established destinations like Costa de1 Sol, Cote d’Azur, and the Aegean Islands. Discriminating consumers who desire “something different” are turning away from these traditional tourism centers because of overdevelopment. This has led to a shift in the “center of gravity” towards new destinations in Southeast Asia and the Far East (Harrison 1992:7; Hitchcock, King and Parnwell 1993:2; Lickorish, Bodlender, Jefferson and Jenkins 1991:24). Singapore has succeeded in capturing this traffic because of its good geographical position. The island acts as a transit point for many destinations within the Southeast Asian region, aided by a sophisticated infrastructure comprising a modern airport, first-class hotels, and worldwide telecommunications. More importantly, the government recognized very early that tourism can be a significant incomeearner for the economy. Thus, concerted efforts were made to plan and market the industry so that tourists will regard Singapore as more than a stopover point. In 1990, the average length of stay was only 3.4 days (STPB 1990:20). Joseph Chew, STPB’s executive director in 1989, led the Board’s optimism for a “revitalized city” (referring to the city state of Singapore as distinguished from the city center per se) worth 5 to 6 days stay (Business Times 1989). This increase was targeted to come from an ambitious Tourism Product Development Plan (MT1 1986). The Plan aimed to introduce new vigor into Singapore’s tourism industry by weaving together isolated pockets of places of interest into a critical mass of attractions. Current attractions will, over time, be linked together based on five major themes: Exotic East; Colonial Heritage; Clean and Green Garden City; Tropical Island Resorts; and International Sports Events. The Exotic East theme seeks to preserve Singapore’s unique cultures by conserving and revitalizing historical areas such as Chinatown and Little India. The Colonial Heritage theme aims to highlight Singapore’s nostalgic colonial past by the creation of a Heritage Link that brings together all old colonial buildings and other structures and features (e.g., the Singapore River) that are associated with the country’s history as a British colony. The Tropical Islands Resort theme will engender the development of the outer islands (such as Sentosa and Lazarus Islands) as beach resorts as well as the development of marinas. The marinas will tie in nicely with the hosting of international sports events such as the Singapore Inshore Powerboat Grand Prix. Clean and Green Garden City seeks to redevelop parks such as the Fort Canning Park so as to appeal to the tourists’ fascination at Singapore’s clean and green environment (MT1 1986:2-5). In many tourism development efforts found elsewhere, planning authorities try to strike a balance between the maintenance of a society’s cultural heritage and integrity (as well as its physical environment) and the commercialization of this heritage (and environment)

TEO AND HUANG

591

for the purpose of tourism and leisure. The bowdleristic theming of places and objects (Prentice 1993:49), using a demand orientation where nature, location, and use of what is being preserved is i.e., ( ultimately determined by consumers of tourism and leisure), such as the “museumization” of buildings and landscapes (where a specific history is preserved or reconstructed according to an idealized form) are avoided as far as possible. Unfortunately in the context of Singapore, heritage has unwittingly been made into a commodity which can be consumed. The Tourism Product Development Plan outlines exactly how specific attractions are to be developed according to what “tourists want to see” (Buang 1987:4). The Civic and Cultural District (CCD) offers a good example of the commodification of heritage. The purpose of this paper is to examine the conservation program/ aspects of the Tourism Product Development Plan by using the CCD (which comes under the theme of Colonial Heritage) as a case study. The paper first highlights the rationale of the planning authorities for the tourism development plan as a whole before examining the specific contents of the Master Plan for the Civic and Cultural District. Using a survey, the paper then assesses the “success” of the government’s efforts to attract and keep the tourists in this project. Subsequently, the meanings invested in the historical landscape of the Civic and Cultural District by the locals and the tourists are compared. The aim of this comparison is to argue for a more sensitive approach in planning for tourism development. Tourism is a “complex trade” (Lickorish, Bodlender, Jefferson and Jenkins 1991:3) with as many down sides as benefits. There is a need to ask whether the government’s tourism development plans are endorsed by the locals or, to put it in more popular language, “Are the goals and objectives clearly defined and related to Local needs?” (Pearce 1989:278). This is a pressing issue and has been the topic of debate in many research works (Harrison 1992; Lea 1988; Pearce 1989; Pearce and Butler 1993; V. Smith 1989). The study will add to the relatively sparse data for the Southeast Asian region (Dearden 1991; Dearden and Harron 1994; Harrison 1992; Hitchcock, King and Parnwell 1993; Hussey 1989; Noronha 1979). HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

In their book, The Tourist-Historic City, Ashworth and Tunbridge stress the importance of the relationship between tourism development and the historical heritage of a city: . . . the tourist is the central actor . . . Tourism in its various forms has played, and continues to exercise, a critical role in the development of such [historic] resources, while conversely . . . historical resources form an equally critical part of a growing tourism industry the symbiosis of the two has become a major force in the design and structure of the modern city (1990:2-3). This is not to deny that other processes also play important roles in the form, function and growth of cities. The importance of history and heritage is highlighted because it provides, inter alia, a rationale for the

592

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

designation of the Civic and Cultural District of Singapore. It was here in this district that Singapore saw its early beginnings as a colony of Britain which was to culminate in nationhood and economic prosperity. The district is the historic core of Singapore’s heritage and has many manifestations of her early urban landscape. They include old buildings that were not only administrative and civic buildings, but also the residences, entertainment, and commercial focus of her entrepot beginnings. It was also here that rapid urban renewal and redevelopment quickly erased much of the island’s past, but is now awakening to its potential as a tourism attraction. In view of the objectives of the paper, it is necessary at this point to clarify some important terms and concepts. The state authorities have already been mentioned as key actors in Singapore’s tourism planning. They refer to the bureaucracy, namely the government, and to the statutory boards who are responsible for the drawing and implementation of policies. The “state” here refers to the supreme power which exercises rule over a people (Hall 1984: 14) and often, though not always, it comprises an elected government which in Singapore’s case is virtually a single party, the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP). Of all the statutory boards, the STPB and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) must be singled out; they each play a significant role in the proposal and implementation of the various tourism development plans. Later this paper discusses the interaction between the state and the individuals (whether locals or tourists) and introduces the concepts of hegemony and resistance. Gramsci (as cited in Kong 1993:343) describes hegemony as that form of domination that does not involve traditional coercive controls but which the majority are persuaded to adopt as their own. Members of the ruling group must persuade the people that their means of achieving this “public good” is by far the best and in the interest of the people. Resistance, according to Gramsci, does exist to contest such hegemony. This resistance can be symbolic and latent or overt and material. In this paper, it is argued that the state attempts to persuade Singaporeans that its development plans for the city center are for the public good. The state has made a case that the Central Business District (CBD) has undergone too many changes, which threaten to “sink [Singapore’s history] into oblivion” (URA 1988a:3). Conservation of the area is, therefore, necessary to preserve a vital part of the country’s history. In addition, because the Orchard Road shopping district lies to its north and the convention-cum-shopping district of Marina Center to its south, the CCD will act as a “natural linkage” (URA 1988b:3) to join the three areas together to serve tourists and locals alike. Conserving the physical buildings to give a special character to the district and introducing new and/or reviving traditional activities will add tourism value to the district and generate income for the country (URA 1986: n.p.). Thus, the CCD will serve two goals: the preservation of heritage and a generator of tourism income. The CCD is only one part of Singapore’s Concept Plan which offers a blueprint for overall urban development on the island. The perspective adopted in the Master Plan for the CCD is a utilitarian one and for that matter, so is urban

TEO AND HUANG

593

planning as a whole. To appreciate the reasons for this, some backtracking of events is necessary. When Singapore first became independent in 1965, the new PAP government embarked on a building program to create a strong infrastructure in terms of transport, sewerage, water and power supply, post and telecommunications, port facilities, housing facilities for the people, and schools. The efforts aimed principally at creating an attractive environment for foreign investment so that Singapore’s economy can grow. Industrialization that followed and the subsequent refocus to the service sector in the 1990s were calculated decisions made by the policy-makers to ensure Singapore’s competitiveness in the global market (see Dixon 1991 and Drakakis-Smith, Graham, Teo and Ooi 1993 for a fuller discussion). Part of the explanation for Singapore’s success is that the Republic has correctly set its priorities, viz that international relations must serve the goals of national development, with particular economic growth (Lau as cited in S.A. Lee 1976: 12).

emphasis on

This openness coupled with planned development has proven to be a trademark of Singapore’s success story. Realizing early that a buoyant economy brings about progress and affluence, the state has capitalized on changing world events, political and economic, to Singapore’s advantage: Singapore’s GNP grew from approximately US$3.2 billion in 1970 to US$19.8 billion in 1982. It increased further to US$47.6 biilion in 1992 (Department of Statistics 1983:55, 1992:2). Precisely because the state has delivered to Singaporeans economic growth and prosperity using such an approach, tourism can be treated likewise. Tourism planning and development is conceived in terms of its economic viability and sustainability more than any other priority. It is, therefore, argued by the state that tourism can help the conservation efforts (conservation was at one time considered antidevelopment) as it serves to realize the “full economic potential of an area” (Powell 1992: 41). More income can be generated for the economy if the city center were not simply a place of work but also a recreation/leisure and retail hub. Singaporeans as users of the Civic and Cultural District can either adapt or resist the state’s plans. Much of the literature on the state and local population dyad has focused on the conflict between planners and people who live or work in an urban environment (Chokor 1988; Lanegran 1986; Ley 1989; Lowenthal 1985; Oliver 1982; Porteous 1988; Relph 1987). What is useful now is to have a wider discussion of how tourism can also influence urban planning. What this paper suggests is that tourism has taken center stage in arguments concerning the conservation of the district. It is the tourists’ perceptions, desires, and concerns that guide URA and STPB, because the tourists are viewed by the state to be integral to the revival of the area. This has led to the creation of a landscape which has been described as “elitist” and removed from the lived experiences of the locals. If so, the question is whether conservation of the Civic and Cultural District can be really genuine and whether conservation serves or excludes the people.

594

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

In works on tourism’s environmental and sociocultural impacts (Shaw and Williams 1994; Theobald 1994), tourism is suggested to have a negative homogenizing influence. In urban landscapes, it destroys local and regional features and replaces these with pseudo places, which suggest nothing of the history, life, and culture of the people who live or work around them. Jackson (as cited in Relph 1976:95) refers to such landscapes as “other directed places.” These places tend to use exotic decoration and gaudy colors. They indiscriminately borrow architectural styles in order to portray the vacationland image as strongly as possible. More importantly, the same theme is uniformly adopted regardless of the location of these other directed places, be they in the United States or in Japan. Relph (1976) suggests that the apogee of other directed places is the colossal amusement park of Disneyland. He uses the term “disneyfication” to describe places that have become “absurd [and] synthetic . . . made up of a surrealistic combination of history, myth, reality and fantasy that have little relationship with the particular geographical setting” (Relph 1976:95). Museumization, he adds, is a particular form of disneyfication that involves the reconstruction of an idealized past. In museumization, developers strive for accurate replication of visible details, more for the purpose of creating a historic ambience for tourist enjoyment than for representing a true picture of the past and for increasing understanding of what is historically significant and valued in the environment (Getz 1994:321-322). All the above issues were addressed through a survey conducted in the Civic and Cultural District (Figure 1) in mid-1992. It involved 112 tourists and 208 locals. The sample of locals were selected to reflect, as much as possible, Singapore’s national profile by gender, age, and ethnic distribution (Table 1). The tourists were divided into two broad categories-Asian (e.g., Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan) and non-Asian (e.g., Australia and New Zealand, Europe, United Kingdom, and United States). This distinction was made because of an anticipated cultural difference in perception. Previous studies on the types of attractions visited revealed preference variations by nationality groups (STPB 1989:56-57). While tourists from non-Asian countries tended to visit cultural/historical attractions such as Elizabeth Walk, Raffles Hotel, and the Singapore River Cruise (28.7 %, 26.1%) and 16.7 %, respectively; compared to the Asian visitors’ equivalents of 25%) visitors from Asia preferred shopping or man10.8%, and 7.2%), made attractions such as Sentosa (53.6% compared to non-Asian visitors’ 46.5%). With this in mind, tourists from non-Asian countries were oversampled in this survey to reflect their taste preference (Table 1). ANZUK (which stands for the Australia, New Zealand and UK defense alliance formed in 1971 with Malaysia and Singapore) countries in particular were also oversampled because they participated in the repossession of Singapore from the Japanese in 1945 or they played an important role in the protection of Singapore after World War II. Consequently, it would follow that they would have a special interest in the historical attractions of the CCD. The overrepresentation of the Japanese was not intended. Although they would also have a similar interest in the

Figure

1. The Civic and Cultural

District

596

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

Table

CONSERVATION

1. Demographic

Profile

IN SINGAPORE

of the Sample Sample

Demographics A. Locals Gender: Male Female Age: Below 20 years 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50 years and above Ethnicity: Chinese Malay Indian Others B. Tourists Gender: Male Female Age: 20-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50 years and above Nationality: Asian (sample = 54.0%;

No.

%

86 122

41.4 58.6

8 74 72 29 25

3.9 35.6 34.6 13.9 12.0

158 30 14 6

76.0 14.4 6.7 2.9

64 48

57.1 42.9

32 31 27 22

28.6 27.7 24.1 19.6

Singapore

Japan Taiwan West Malaysia India Non-Asian (sample = 46.0%; Australia/New Zealand United Kingdom United States Germany

= 68.5%) 55 8 4 3 Singapore = 31.5%) 18 14 6 4

49.1 7.1 3.6 2.7 17.1 12.5 5.3 3.6

commemorating World War II, their oversampling was mainly because they visited these sites in organized groups and were available in large numbers compared to other Asian tourists. The questionnaire was designed to solicit views with regard to the success of the conservation efforts for the district, especially pertaining to form and function. Where relevant, other published sources about the district are also used in the paper. monuments

Retrospective and Prospective Insights

The history of the Civic and Cultural District dates back to the Tentative evidence suggests that mid-13th and early 14th centuries.

TEO

AND HUANG

597

the focal point of Singapore’s role as a trading emporium at this time lay in Bukit Larangan (now known as Fort Canning Hill). The period between the decline of ancient Singapore and the coming of the British remains ~abuluru~a in the historical annals. Only with the establishment of colonial rule were records more reliable. When Sir Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company landed at the mouth of the Singapore River in 1819, the inhabitants numbered 120 Malay fishermen and 30 Chinese living in a fishing settlement (Bartley 1982). Colonial rule, which followed soon after Raffles’ arrival, introduced changes to the area’s landscape. As the nerve center for the British, Raffles’ 1822 planned layout for the district included government buildings, a military cantonment, church, social clubs, and a cricket ground (McGee 1967). By 1860, military defence was catered for by Fort Canning and Fort Fullerton (now Fullerton Building, which houses the General Post Office). From the early 1820s to 1930s Palladian-style municipal judicial and legislative centers were constructed, e.g., Court House (now Parliament House); the Secretariat (the old Attorney-General’s Chambers); Singapore Town Hall (now Victoria Memorial Hall); City Hall; and Supreme Court. The Esplanade fronted these buildings and served as a prominent public square for the social activities of the European community. Prestigious social establishments, constructed in the late 19th century, such as the Raffles Hotel, the Adelphi Hotel, Singapore Cricket Club, and the Singapore Recreation Club, contributed to the air of an aristocratic life imitative of that in England (McGee 1964:71). Churches such as St. Andrew’s Cathedral and Church of Good Shepherd reflected the religious roots of the European community. Citadels of learning such as St. Joseph’s Institution and Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus were also built during this time. By 1860, Singapore’s success as a free port under the British had attracted 50,000 Chinese and 13,000 Indians to the island (Department of Statistics 1957). Although they resided in their own ethnic enclaves nearby (Chinatown and Little India), they worked and played in the city. They were mainly coolies (laborers), itinerant hawkers, and merchants, while the more educated became civil servants. To signal the arrival of the modern 20th century, a new wave of retail, office, and hotel complexes was established in the district. Stretching from the Shaw/Capitol Building of 1930 to Dhoby Ghaut, this part of the district became the new social magnet. Singapore’s first skyscraper, Cathay Building, was built here in 1939. With independence in 1965 and the emphasis to transform the city into a modern metropolis, the skyline of the CCD underwent another phase of change. Urban renewal brought about the demolition of many old buildings and introduced concrete, steel, and glass-clad structures. Even educational institutions were not spared. First built in 1937, Raffles Institution was demolished and replaced in 1986 by Raffles City, a self-contained mega shopping-cum-hotel complex. Increasingly, the CCD assumed a cosmopolitan character. As part of the development mania that pervaded the 1950s to the 197Os, urban landscapes were in particular subject to rapid change, resulting in factories, uniform blocks of apartments, and offices in

598

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

skyscrapers in an attempt to industrialize and provide infrastructure. Within the CBD, small privately-owned properties were taken over and combined into larger blocks by URA for commercial uses. Already in these early years, some professionals had called for conservation (Lim and Lip 1980), but development was perceived as a more presstrend ing need. However, in recent years, following an international towards urban conservation, there has been an outcry against standardization. In Singapore, conservation is broadly defined as the process of looking after a place (or a building) so as to retain its cultural significance. It includes maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, and adaptation (Powell 1992:47). Although conservation is now a household word, it was not always the case. Early efforts took a very low profile. For example, the URA undertook Cuppage Terrace and Murray Street in 1977 and Peranakan Place in 1985. The Preservation of Monuments Board established in 1971 also helped safeguard some major buildings of historical and architectural importance (R.A. Smith 1988:249). However, despite these initial rumblings, conservation did not really take off until 1986, precipitated mainly by the fall in tourist numbers. By the early 198Os, tourist arrivals had declined in comparison to the growth in the 1960s and early 1970s when it was greater than 21% . The oil crises of 1974 and 1975 brought growth in tourist arrivals to a single digit; and from then on, it never regained its previous levels. In 1982, visitor arrivals rose by only 4.5 %, the lowest in 18 years (Wong 1988:73). Urban redevelopment was seen to have had a negative impact on Singapore’s tourism industry. By 1984, there was a strategic shift: In our effort to build up a modern metropolis, we have removed aspects of our Oriental mystique and charm which are best symbolized in old buildings, traditional activities and bustling roadside activities such as the pasas malam (MT1 1984:6). [Pasar malam refers to open-air markets held in the evenings; an array of goods such as

cooked food items, fashion products, toys and music cassettes are sold.]

Two other points were also raised by the state to account for the decline in numbers. First, protectionism. Due to the poor economic performance of the world in the early 198Os, many industrial countries restricted overseas travel by their citizens in order to conserve badly needed foreign exchange. Second, Singapore’s high prices, especially hotel rates and shopping, had made the island uncompetitive as a destination (MT1 1984:4). The MT1 report’s findings underscore the importance (and volatility) of the tourism industry for Singapore’s In 1986, tourism contributed 13.2 $% (US$1.2 billion) of economy. Singapore’s foreign exchange earnings and 5.7% of its GDP (R.A. Smith 1988:251). While there was an urgency for modernization and industrialization in Singapore, it was also acknowledged that the conservation of the country’s heritage for tourism was equally important, else “the huge investments made by both government and private inhotels, shopping centers and the navestors in airport infrastructure, What is tional airline . . . [will not] break even” (MT1 1984:6-7).

TEO AND HUANG

599

absent from this rationale as perceived by the planning authorities are the views of the “wider spectrum of the populace” (Butlin 1987:37). This paper’s position is that the elite, namely the tourism planners, have not sufficiently taken into account that users of the district are not only tourists but the local population. What locals desire or perceive as their heritage should also be considered in the plans for the Civic and Cultural District. Heritage is regarded as “an inheritance or legacy, things of value which have passed from one generation to the next” (Prentice 1993:5-6). In tourism, heritage has come to mean not only landscapes, natural history, buildings, artifacts, cultural traditions and the like, which are literally or metaphorically passed from one generation to the other, but those among these that can be portrayed for promotion as tourism products. The emphasis on tourism seems more evident than the inheritance portion of the definition of heritage in the case of conservation in Singapore. That the masses, often referred to as the “vernacular” or “the man-inthe-street,” and their lived experiences and views on heritage are ignored by planners brings into question the legitimacy of the minority elite to design and plan a landscape. This radical perspective holds that those who wield power have the ability to shape landscapes (Anderson 1988; Knox 1982; Pahl 1975; Schorske 1980). They decide what constitutes heritage and what of the past is worth conserving. Tay (1991) suggested that Singapore’s political elite used the ideology of progress and economic prosperity to justify the clearance of old shop-houses and kumpongs (villages). In a similar fashion, the Master Plan of the Civic and Cultural District (URA 1988b:3) rationalizes that the district must be conserved because it is a “rich historical area,” but predicated to this is the argument that the Civic and Cultural District lies astride the tourism retail belt of Orchard Road and the convention core of Marina Center. In other words, the commercial value of the district is as important as its historical value. Other conservation projects before the CCD bear evidence of this position. Peranakan Place, which attempts to conserve the unique marriage of the Malay and Chinese cultures, has physical buildings conserved to reflect this heritage but the current activities in the project have little relationship with its name. Gone are the shops that displayed only Peranakan food and clothing. In their place now are stores that sell sports shoes and equipment, an optical shop and a non-Peranakan snack bar. Economics has dictated that only commercially viable shops can survive there. Besides the CCD, the Tourism Development Plan includes other Historic Districts that call for the conservation of ethnic enclaves, such as Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam. The stated aims of these projects are to increase local cultural consciousness and to provide a strong sense of place for the local people (Pannell, Kerr and Forster 1986: l-3). While this may be the case, the tourism value to be acquired from these projects cannot be denied. URA and STPB readily admit to this. For example, STPB acts firstly as the catalyst and then as the coordinator between the private sector and the government in the Chinatown conservation project (Wong 1988:75). This is a pragmatic decision, but it also serves to illustrate further the conflicting

600

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

interests that conservation projects present. Who really benefits from such projects? Is it the tourists or the locals? The plan for the CCD, as with the other Historic District projects, is both to conserve the area’s unique buildings and to enhance its historical character by bringing back some of the traditional activities of the various cultures of the people (e.g., pasar mulam) which would attract tourists. When plans were released by the URA on the CCD, it held an exhibition to invite feedback. In a dialogue, the Minister for National Development and 180 professionals were reported to have discussed the economic viability of parts of the project, the architectural merits (including aesthetics) of the plans, and the location of roads to ease traffic congestion (URA 1988c:2-5). Rather than ordinary people who live or work there, the views reported were those of professional architects, real estate developers, academics, and engineers. What about the views of the masses? In any event, there is a CCD Master Plan. The double-barrelled approach of mixing history with commerce is apparent in the specific objectives as outlined in this Master Plan (URA 1988a). These are, one, to revitalize it as a key cultural and retail magnet of the city (this will allow for the natural linkage between the Orchard Road corridor and the Marina Center); two, to enhance distinctive qualities of CCD to reinforce its identity as a historical colonial hub; three, to accentuate the special function of the district as a venue for national celebrations and ceremonies; and four, to provide the physical framework for the drawing up of the Cultural Master Plan of Singapore (the district will contain art galleries, theatres, museums, and exhibitions by the year 2000). The CCD is divided into several identity zones (URA 1988b), which are characterized by their function, layout, and historical development (Figure 2). The Cultural Center Zone is designated as a museum-cumart gallery precinct. Old and new buildings along South to North Bridge Roads and the parallel New Bridge Road to Victoria Street will form a retail corridor that offers upmarket retail activities. The shops will be directly accessible from the traditional colonnaded covered walkways, which will provide protection from the sun and rain. This offers shopping with a difference, at least in ambience, from the ubiquitous modern shopping center. The Raffles City/Marina Zone will also be an upmarket commercial node with convention facilities also available. The Clemenceau Corridor Zone, which is richly lined with buildings of diverse architecture and history will be transformed into a commercial and institutional spine. Chettiar Temple and Church of the Sacred Heart are some institutions that will grace the corridor; but because it is so close to Orchard Road, shopping will become a major focus. The Civic Center/Padang Zone contains stately colonial buildings and will be the seat of civic power. The very large field fronting many of the municipal buildings known as the Padang will be used for ceremonial and recreational purposes. The Istana Zone offers potential as a civic node and also houses the entrance to the official Presidential residence. The Singapore River Zone will have a mix of commercial, cultural, and residential activities. The green lung remains in Fort Canning Park, which will serve as an urban sanctuary for those seeking peace from the busy city’s noise.

601

TEO AND HUANG

Major

Open

Space

V,ctor~a Street /North

Brfdge Road

Cultural Entertainment Commercial

Clemenceau

A

/Retall / Retail

Avenue

ISTANA

P

c? ‘3

--

m’4 $ --

0

New Bridge

Road I South

Bridge

Road

Figure 2. A Conceptual Diagram of the Zones of Use in CCD

In the eyes of the state, all these put together will give Singapore “a vibrant cultural belt, an impressive historical district with green open spaces, and a unique tourist attruction” (MT1 1986:30; emphasis added). While the creation of the historic district will “enrich our city form by providing contrast, variety and a sense of time and place” (Koh-Lim 1986:4), it will also provide enough events and attractions to draw the tourist crowds. As such, the next task is to discover whether, the tourists agree that the district is successful in retaining and representing Singapore’s heritage, and whether Singaporeans agree with the way the authorities have restored the area.

Survey Findings The Civic and Cultural District is associated with a multiplicity of functions and styles. Corporate power is represented by modern edi-

602

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

Table 2. Types of Buildings that Should be Conserved in the CCD (Highest Priority 0x11~)~

Locals

Tourists

Total

Types of Buildings

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Colonial Buildings Old Shop-houses Modem High-Rise Total

81 20 11 112

72.3 17.8 9.9 100.0

104 67 37 208

50.0 32.2 17.8 100.0

185 87 48 320

57.8 27.2 15.0 100.0

“Respondents were asked “Of these three types of buildings found in the CCD, which should be accorded the greatest priority in terms of conservation?”

fices such as Raffles City, while civic power lies behind the walls of the old colonial buildings like the City Hall and Supreme Court. Vernacu-

lar-styled row shop-houses of two or three storeys represent the comings and goings of a larger residential population who have since disappeared due to urban renewal and redevelopment. In addition, statues such as that of Sir Stamford Raffles, monuments such as the War Memorial, and sculptures such as the Merlion Fountain have been added over the years as part of Singapore’s history. In line with the planners, 90.1% of the tourists identified the colonial buildings and old shop-houses as part of the historical heritage of Singapore that is most worth keeping (Table 2). In addition, the macame to the district for a historic tour jority of the tourists, (39.3%) (Table 3). A fair number (12.5 %) also came because of the unique architecture. The archetypical response of tourists visiting the district was: The scenery around the City Hall area, well, there seems a historic air about the place. There is a special character in this part of Singa-

Table 3. Main Purpose of Tourists’ Visit to the CCD and Main Activities Engaged in by Locals in the CCD

Locals

Tourists Purpose Historic Tour Shopping Parks/Gardens Unique Architecture Exhibitions/Galleries/Cultural Shows Local Food/Restaurants Hotel Facilities/Entertainment Religious “People Watching” Total

No.

%

44 18 17

39.3 16.1 15.2

8 6 5

14

112

No.

%

12.5

47 34

-

22.6 16.3

7.1 5.4 4.4 100.0

25 52 15 7 28 208

12.0 25.0 7.2 3.4 13.5 100.0

-

TEO AND HUANG

603

pore. Maybe its these old colonial buildings . . . It gives me a totally

different feeling from Orchard Road.

As suggested by the Report of the Tourism Task Force (MT1 1984), tourists do not particularly want to see more modern landscapes, which are “faceless” and “homogeneous in appearance” (Keys as cited in Powell 1992:41). The Westin Stamford, which is advertised as the tallest hotel in Southeast Asia, was described as “plain and boring as a thermos flask . . . [which] does nothing for the historic character of the district” (Figure 3). There is agreement also with the planners that: Singapore is fast losing its character compared to Thailand and other Asean countries. If the old shop-houses and colonial buildings are destroyed, you destroy your heritage and culture. In the end, you are left with the trappings of a modern city . . . indistinguishable from other American cities.

Of the 56 tourists who did find something unattractive about Singapore’s Civic and Cultural District, 12 mentioned “tall buildings” and 10 “heavy traffic” as unappealing. In contrast, what was most attractive

Figure 3. The Westin Stamford Hotel and Raffles City

604

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

(Table 4) included cleanliness (21.4%), the colonial buildings (15.2%), urban open spaces (14.3%), the contrasting architectural styles (13.4%), and the old shop-houses (9.8%). Making the district attractive in terms of a different style of shopping from the ubiquitous shopping center also gained kudos among the tourists. Some 16% of the tourists came to the district to visit shops such as those that line the colonnaded walkways in Shaw/Capitol Building, 5.4% came to patronize the local restaurants and hawker centers and 7.1% came for cultural shows and exhibitions and to view the art galleries (Table 3). The green lungs at the Esplanade and at Fort Canning Park were also major successes among the tourists (15.2 %), as it provided them a soothing respite from the hustle and bustle of the city. It came as “a pleasant change . . . after all that sightseeing and shopping.” It can be concluded that the Civic and Cultural District is successful as a historical attraction site. Specific landmarks within the district that STPB has promoted as unique only to Singapore were also perceived to be important enough for conservation among the tourists (Table 5). Old colonial buildings such as Supreme Court, City Hall, and Parliament House were voted for conservation by the majority. Other conserved buildings such as Raffles Hotel, Empress Place, Victoria Memorial Hall, and the National Museum also met with tourist approval. Raffles City, the only modern city structure was, as expected, not widely approved by the tourists. Singaporeans were also surveyed. They (77.9 % of 208 surveyed) do concur with the authorities that the Civic and Cultural District is relevant to Singapore’s political, economic, and cultural heritage (Table 6). Politically, many Singaporeans associate specific features in the landscape with Singapore’s colonial past. Beginning with the site of Sir Stamford Raffles’ landing as a historic cornerstone, many of the old colonial buildings such as City Hall, Fullerton Building, and Supreme Court were perceived as the seats of colonial civic power. They have been transformed to local civic power since independence in 1965. Table

4. Most Attractive

Feature

of the CCD

Tourists

Locals

Features

No.

%

Cleanliness Colonial Buildings Urban Open Spaces Contrast in Architectural Old Shop-houses Local food Shopping Others Monuments Me&on No response Total

24 17 16 15 11 8 6 5 4 3 3 112

21.4 15.2 14.3 13.4 9.8 7.1 5.4 4.5 3.5 2.7 2.7 100.0

Styles

No.

%

11 64 32 7 32 25 11 2 9 15 -

5.3 30.8 15.4 3.4 15.4 12.0 5.3 1.0 4.3 7.1 -

208

100.0

TEO

AND

HUANG

605

Table 5. Tourist Attitude to Attractions of CCD

Pro-Conservation

No.

No.

%

1.8 5.4 -

3 6 17 23

2.7 5.4 15.2 20.5

78.6 72.3

-

24 31

21.4 27.7

80

71.4

-

32

28.6

77 75 74 72

68.8 66.9 66.1 64.3

-

-

14 21

12.5 18.7

35 37 24 19

31.2 33.1 21.4 17.0

72 58 37

64.3 51.8 33.0

40 48 19

35.7 42.8 17.0

Features

No.

%

Merlion Fountain Raftles Hotel Supreme Court City Hall War Memorial Park Fort Canning Park Victoria Memorial Hall National Museum/ Art Gallery Parliament House Esplanade Singapore River Empress Place Building Old Shop-houses Raffles City

107 100 95 89

95.5 89.2 84.9 79.5

88 81

“Respondents landmark.

Do Not Know/ No Opinion”

Anti-Conservation

could not give an opinion

-

%

2 6

-

-

6 56

5.4 50.0

because

they were not aware of the building/

Table 6. Reasons Why the CCD is Considered Part of Singaporeans’ Heritage” Rationale A. Political Heritage Colonial Struggle Struggle for National Independence/ Seat of Present Government Founding of Singapore/Raffles’ Landing Site World War II Experiences B. Economic Heritage Pioneers Struggled for a Living Central to Singapore’s Economic Growth from an Entrepot Trading Center to an Information Center C. Cultural Heritage Root of Singapore’s Multicultural Composition Early Educational Institutions Total

No.

%

90 41

55.6 25.3

23 15 11 45 31

14.2 9.3 6.8 27.7 19.1

14 27 18 9 162

8.6 16.7 11.1 5.6 100.0

“This table reflects only the opinions of the 162 respondents that the CCD forms part of Sinagpore’s heritage.

who agreed

606

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

Figure 4. A Row of Conserved Shop-Houses in the CCD Singapore’s struggle for nationhood is captured by the Padang where National Day parades were held for many years, until recently when the parade has been decentralized to other locations on alternate years. The district also captures for Singaporeans her economic and cultural heritage. The Singapore River in particular is associated with Malay, Chinese, and Indian pioneers who slaved as itinerant hawkers, coolies, and merchants in order to forge a living in Singapore. Here in the district, the first schools and places of religious worship were built for the British and for their forefathers. Today, the modern skyscrapers such as Raffles City represent for Singaporeans a powerful symbol of the country’s economic success, rising from a small fishing village of 150 people to a global city-state of 3 million people. However, the CCD is more than just a historically significant place for Singaporeans. The CCD has been and continues to be the site of mundane activities such as a place for eating (25%) and for shopping have formed an (22.6%) (Table 3). F rom such usage, Singaporeans identity with the place, because they get to know it fairly intimately. Meanings become invested into these “people places” (Jacobs 1961). For example, until they were closed for refurbishing, the shop-houses along Bras Basah Road were places where people U . . . popped over for lunch and then, if there was time to spare, walk[ed] down the musty second-hand bookshops to browse around.” The state, in its conservation fervor, has extended its reach into such people places, but with mixed results. The conserved Bras Basah shop-houses were described as “artificial” and resemble “cream confetti packaged for the tourists” (Figure 4). They were seen by some respondents as contrived and made according to “romantic images of the

TEO AND HUANG

607

past” (Relph 1976: 103), rather than a realistic portrayal of the actual landscape. Of the 108 locals who had something to criticize about 19.4 % said that these conserved Singapore’s conservation program, shop-houses were “eye-sores.” While this may be so, another 9.3% felt that the shop-houses left in a dilapidated state were just as unsightly. In addition, modern buildings such as the Mass Rapid Transit headquarters at Victoria Street and the Hill Street and High Street hawker centers were also considered ugly (67.6 %). The remaining 3.7 % felt that modern sculptures found in some of the conserved places were out of place. What comes across from these findings is that Singaporeans have mixed feelings about the conservation projects. While something ought to be done about old and dilapidated buildings, it is uncertain if Singaporeans are happy with the results so far. At the same time, not all modern buildings appeal to Singaporeans, no matter how much they constitute “people places” (namely the hawker centers). Perhaps the affective bond Singaporeans feel is stronger for only some features in the district. For example, to the locals, the open urban space in the Esplanade is not just a pleasant sward of greenery. It is replete with nostalgic memories of childhood days: For me, the Esplanade is what is most striking in the district . . . I can still recall the sheer fun I had there . . . going after dinner was such a treat . . . running around in the park and playing catching [colloquialism for “tag”] with my brothers.

This intimate affective bond exists because of pleasant or meaningful life experiences there. Structures such as the War Memorial are similarly invested with meaning. The War Memorial commemorates those who died in the Japanese Occupation (1942-1945) and represents hallowed grounds. Every year on 15 February, relatives and friends may be found there, paying their respects to the dead. Another example is found in Empress Place, a cluster of buildings (erected between 1856-1865) which served as the Singapore Town Hall in its early days and, more recently, as the Immigration Department and the Registry of Births and Deaths. One of the buildings currently houses the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (SSO). The main building in Empress Place has been converted into a grand museum for exhibitions of artifacts imported or loaned from abroad. It also contains restaurants. The idea was that this could be a cultural focus for Singaporeans and for tourists (The Straits Times 1989). In the survey, over half of the respondents felt that the Empress Place project was a success as a conservation project (Table 7). The main reason for its success was the architectural sensitivity with which the building was restored. Other successes included the interesting exhibits and its ability to draw the tourist crowds. Of the 14.4% who viewed the project as a conservation failure, their main unhappiness was with regard to the new and “modern” look of the building or its appearance as a commercialized tourism trap that charged too high prices to be of interest to locals. When the building housed the National Registration and Immigration Offices, few Singaporeans could afford to ignore it. After the removal of these offices, the buildings went to disuse.

608

TOURISM

Table

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

7. Reasons Why Empress Place Succeeds or Fails as a Conservation Project

Position

Reason

Succeeds n = 111 (53.4%)

The building was restored with architectural sensitivity. It has interesting exhibits in the museum. It succeeds as a tourist attraction. Respondent has no knowledge of the place/is unable to comment. Respondent noted that some structural changes were made but gave no opinion on these. The original structure is lost/ the building looks too modern/ the building is not homely. It is just a tourist trap. Few locals visit it because it is too commercialised/it charges high prices.

Neutral n = 67 (32.2%)

Fails n = 30(14.4%)

No.

81 21 9

64

3

13 9

8

Compounding the lack of functional utility was the removal of three high-traffic bus embayments in front of the buildings, a move propelled by the authorities because the human and vehicular traffic failed to blend with the old world ambience desired for the area (Business Times 1988). This idealization of the building is a clear example of how museumization literally isolated Empress Place from the daily rhythms of the average Singaporean, thereby alienating it from the people. Even those who saw it as a success expressed their measures in terms of its external facade only. They never indicated feeling for the place once it was transformed. In the endeavor to create an attractive and unique spot for the tourists, the public’s input is sometimes overlooked (or at least does not seem well represented). Eu Court, formerly a residential building, was torn down despite the public’s opinion of it as an architecturally and historically significant building (The Straits Times 1991a; 1991b; 199 1c; 1991d). The official reason given was the need to prevent traffic congestion in that area. Moreover, between two equally historically significant buildings, Eu Court and Stamford House, the latter was saved, according to Dhanabalan, then Minister of National Development, not only because it had “more outstanding architectural style [but also] . . . a greater potential to become an active and successful commercial center” (Roots 1991:5). Of the 208 respondents who were asked who they thought benefited most from the conservation projects of Raffles Hotel, Empress Place, and Capitol Building/Shaw House, 3 1.7 % responded that the government (through increased tourism revenues) stood to gain. Another 25% felt that tourists would also benefit from the wider variety and better facilities now available in the district.

TEO AND HUANG

609

Further, private developers were also perceived to gain from higher rental charges (20.2%). Less than a quarter (23.1%) said that the average Singaporean would stand to gain, mainly because the conservation program ensured that important historical buildings would not be pulled down. When asked for more details as to what they felt were URA’s uppermost aims in the conservation projects, 43% of the respondents suggested that URA’s main motive was to attract tourists; while non-economic motives such as the rebuilding of the past and the creation of a blend of old with new structures were of secondary respectively). A small minority importance (35.6% and 17.3%, (4.1%) even mentioned the creation of jobs for the construction industry as being the uppermost objective. That the landscape caters to the tourists rather than the masses is also evidenced by the 32 responses of locals who characterized the Raffles Hotel project (Figure 5) as “a renowned tourist attraction” (Table 8). Immortalized by Somerset Maugham as the place that “stands for all the fables of the exotic East,” the Tourism Task Force views the Raffles Hotel as the “Crown Jewel of the tourist industry” (MT1 1986:37). It was turned into an exclusive hotel with five-star status which specifies a proper dress-code for certain parts of the hotel. It boasts of upmarket shops such as Tz$fbty’s. Most Singaporeans interviewed who agreed that the hotel was a successful conservation endeavor said so because they felt that the restoration managed to replicate the architecture and ambience of the past, inclusive of palms and a doorman (Table 8). Although the criterion of exterior beauty is appraised as successful, local identification with the place was absent.

Figure 5. Raffles Hotel

610

TOURISM

Table

AND HERITAGE

8. Reasons

CONSERVATION

Why Raffles Hotel Succeeds Conservation Project

IN SINGAPORE

or Fails as a

Reason Succeeds n =150(72.1%)

Neutral n = 18(8.6%)

Fails n = 40(19.3%)

The building’s architecture has been conserved well. The colonial ambience has been retained. It is a renowned tourist attraction. It’s not a place for Singaporeans so I have no comments. I have never been there so I can’t comment. It’s just another building. Structural changes were made to the building (e.g., a new wing was added) - this is not conservation. It is overpriced/elitist/few people go there.

No.

83 35 32 8 6 4

20 20

It was perceived by some as a place catering to an upmarket tourist clientele: . . . the place does not seem to belong to the average class of Singaporeans. I am so afraid that if I walk along their [the hotel’s] corridor, I will be pounced upon by the guard for trespassing. This was the reason cited by half of the 40 respondents who considered that the Raffles Hotel failed as a conservation project. The findings suggest that besides the physical form, the conservation of functions is perhaps also important. External facades may be preserved, but if the buildings are devoid of their previous activities, they are less likely to be accepted by the population. According to Liu Thai Ker, then Chief Executive Officer and Planner of the URA, adaptive reuse was introduced into many buildings because “there is no earthly justification to say that you must freeze [traditional trades and lifestyles prior to conservation] at the point of restoration, because lifestyles have been changing ever since the buildings were built” (H.T. Lee 1991:3). The traditional appearance of the buildings may be restored but the modification of the interior for the purposes of commercially viable activities (The Straits Times 1990a) does not sit well with some Singaporeans. Economic justification alone, an argument strongly adhered by the state, is evidently not enough in conservation. CONCLUSIONS Singaporeans and tourists alike agree with the state authorities that the Civic and Cultural District is pertinent to Singapore’s historical heritage. It is the colonial buildings and those associated with Singa-

TEO AND HUANG

611

pore’s romantic past rather than the modern edifices that draw the tourists to the district. While this is a common denominator between tourists and Singaporeans, the agreement ends here. Singaporeans’ deep-rooted attachment to certain places in the district (e.g., Bras Basah shop-houses) and the symbolism represented by many of the buildings and features (e.g., Singapore River) goes beyond the external facades of buildings and structures. The museumization of places may cater to tourist taste and preferences, but Singaporeans feel alienated from erstwhile vernacular places (e.g., Bras Basah shop-houses and Empress Place). Detachment is reinforced by the creation of elite landscapes (e.g., Raffles Hotel). If so, is there a genuine concern for the preservation of heritage ? Are the benefits accruing to the tourists or to the locals? The state must review its position lest the people come to see this important place as not their own. In the final analysis, according to Yeo, then Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs, the preservation of physical symbols of a nation’s heritage is to help Singaporeans foster a “sense of place and history” (Yeo 1989:47) and to cement their sense of nationhood. Tourism should not and need not challenge the existing sense of pride and belonging already evidenced in the Civic and Cultural District. If anything, tourism should be used to enhance these exact feelings. The state should be applauded for their conservation initiatives and Singapore has come a long way from the indiscriminate tearing down of old buildings. However, the state must be sensitive to the people’s feelings as well. The economic motive of a larger tourism dollar or even a commercially viable project (whether for locals or for tourists) is not convincing enough to persuade Singaporeans that it is for their common good. Over the years as Singaporeans have become more affluent, they now address, head-on, issues that concern their quality of life. Because they have passed the stage of struggle for survival, Singaporeans now often criticize and question the economic motive, as they did in this survey and in others (see, for example, The Straits Times 1990b, 199Oc, 1990d, 1991e on the debate concerning the conversion of Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus into a retail center, 1991f on the redevelopment of Bugis Street, which was once well-known as a gathering place for transvestites). Unfortunately the resistance is still relatively small. No collective voice, save for the Singapore Heritage Society, formed in 1987, which will meaningfully resist state actions. From the survey, although many of the respondents criticized the commercialization of the conservation projects, they also acknowledged the importance of the tourism dollar. Therein lies the conflict that Singaporeans must resolve. If properly handled, conservation (and other tourism development plans) need not threaten the vernacular landscape that Singaporeans hold so dear. The state has opened up channels of communication by inviting public forum on several conservation projects to which Singaporeans have responded, especially to the press. The state can help to consolidate these many voices that want to be heard. In this way, an even more sound tourism development plan which reflects the goals and aspirations of the people as well can be created. Tourists have been flocking away from overdeveloped destinations such as Costa de1 Sol because of the loss of novelty. They

612

TOURISM

AND HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

come to Singapore to see “something different.” If the conservation projects become too commercialized, Singapore also stands to lose the tourist traffic. It would be prudent to monitor new developments in the Civic and Cultural District to ensure continued tourist arrivals and, at the same time to safeguard the heritage of Singaporeans. 0 0 Acknowledgment-The authors collection of the field data.

wish to acknowledge

the assistance

of H.M.

Heng in the

REFERENCES Anderson, K.J. 1988 Cultural Hegemony and the Race-definition Process in Chinatown, Vancouver: 1880-1980. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 6:127-149. Ashworth, G.J., and J.E. Tunbridge 1990 The Tourist-Historic City. London: Belhaven. Bartley, W. 1982 The Population of Singapore in 1819. In Singapore: 150 Years, M. Sheppard, ed., p. 117. Singapore: Times Books International. Buang, Z. 1987 Sowing the Seeds of Tourism. Mirror 23: l-5. Business Times, Singanore 1989 Giving Old At&actions New Life. Business Times, Singapore (5 April):lO. Business Times. Sinnanore (Weekend Edition) 1988 URA Draws”Up Plans to Add Life to ihe Civic and Cultural District. Business Times, Singapore (12-13 March): 1. Butlin, R.A. 1987 Theory and Methodology in Historical Geography. In Historical Geography: Progress and Prospect, M. Pacione, ed., pp. 16-45. London: Croom Helm. Chokor, B.A. 1988 Cultural Aspects of Place Consciousness and Environmental Identity. In Ethnoscapes, Vol. 1: Environmental Perspectives, D. Canter, M. Krampen and D. Stea, eds., pp. 54-71. Aldershot: Avebury. Dearden, P. 1991 Tourism and Sustainable Development in Northern Thailand. Geographical Review 81:400-413. Dearden, P., and S. Harron 1994 Alternative Tourism and Adaptive Change. Annals of Tourism Research 21: 81-102. DOS 1957 Census of Singapore. Singapore: Department of Statistics. 1983 Economic and Social Statistics of Singapore 1960-1982. Singapore: Department of Statistics. 1992 Yearbook of Statistics 1992. Singapore: Department of Statistics. Dixon, C. 1991 Southeast Asia in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drakakis-Smith, D., E. Graham, P. Teo, and G.L. Ooi 1993 Singapore: Reversing the Demographic Transition to Meet Labour Needs. Scottish Geographical Magazine 109: 152- 163. Getz, D. 1994 Event Tourism and the Authenticity Dilemma. In Global Tourism: The Next Decade, W.F. Theobald, ed. pp. 313-329. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hall, S. 1984 The State in Question. In The Idea of the Modern State, McLennan, G., D. Held and S. Hall, eds., pp. l-28. Milton Keyes: Open University Press. Harrison, D., ed. 1992 Tourism and the Less Developed Countries. London: Belhaven.

TEO

AND

HUANG

613

Hitchcock, M., V.T. King, and M.J.G. Parnwell, eds. 1993 Tourism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge. Hussey, A. 1989 Tourism in a Bali Village. Geographical Review 79:31 i-325. Jacobs, J. 1961 The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage. Knox, P.L. 1982 The Social Production of the Built Environment. Ekistics 49(295): 291-297. Koh-Lim, W.G. 1986 The Preservation of Old SingaporeWhat and Why: URA Perspective. Paper presented at a Seminar on the Role of History in a Modern Technological Society: Challenge and Response, Singapore. Kong, L. 1993. Negotiating Conceptions of “Sacred Space”: A Case Study of Religious Buildings in Singapore. Transactions ofthe Institute of British Geographers 18:342-358. Lanegran, D.A. 1986 Enhancing and Using a Sense of Place Within Urban Areas: A Role for Applied Cultural Geography. Professional Geographer 38: 224-228. Lea, J. 1988 Tourism and Development in the Third World. London: Routledge. Lee, H.T. 1991 The Conservation Dilemma. Mirror 27:1-4. Lee, S.A. 1976. The Economic System. In Singapore: Society in Transition, R. Hassan, ed., pp. 3-29. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Ley, D. 1989 Modernism, Post-modernism and the Struggle for Place. In The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imaginations, J.A. Agnew and J.S. Duncan, eds., pp. 44-65. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Lickorish, L.J., J. Bodlender, A. Jefferson, and C. Jenkins 1991 Developing Tourism Destinations: Policies and Perspectives. Harlow: Loneman. Lim, J., &id E. Lip 1980 Emerald Hill Revisited: Some Conservation Proposals. Singapore Institute of Architects Journal (July-August):22-31. Lowenthal, D. 1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGee, T. 1967 ‘The Southeast Asian City: A Social Geography of the Primate Cities of Southeast Asia. London: Graham Bell and Sons. MT1 1984 Report of the Tourism Task Force. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry. 1986. Tourism Product Development Plan. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industrv. Noronha, ‘R. 1979 Paradise Reviewed: Tourism in Bali. In Tourism: Passoort to Develooment?. E. deKadt, ed., pp. 177-204. New York: Oxford Universit; Press. ’ Oliver, K.A. 1982 Places, Conservation and the Care of Streets in Hartlepool. In Valued Environments, J.R. Gold and J. Burgess, eds., pp. 145-160. London: George Allen & Unwin. Pahl, R.A. 1975 Whose Citv? Hammondsworth: Peneuin. Pannell, Kerr and ‘Forster 1986 Tourism Development in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. Pearce, D. 1989. Tourist Development (2nd ed.), New York: Longman. Pearce, D., and R.W. Butler, eds. 1993 Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. London: Routledge.

614

TOURISM

AND

HERITAGE

CONSERVATION

IN SINGAPORE

Porteous, J.D. 1988 Topocide: The Annihilation of Place. In Qualitative Methods in Human Geography, J. Eyles, and D.M. Smith, eds., pp. 75-93. Cambridge: Polity Press. Powell, R. 1992. Urban Renewal and Conservation in a Rapidly Developing Country. Singapore Institute of Architects Journal (November/December):40-47. Prentice, R. 1993. Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London: Routledge. Relph, E. 1976 Place and Placelessness. London: Pion Ltd. 1987 The Modern Urban Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Roots. 1991 Roots. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society. Schorske, C.E. 1980 Fin-de-siecle Vienna: Politics and Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Shaw, G., and A.M. Williams 1994 Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. STPB 1989 Survey of Overseas Visitors to Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. 1990 Singapore Monthly Report on Tourism Statistics. Singapore: Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. 1991 Annual Report 1990/91. Singapore: Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. Smith, R.A. 1988. The Role of Tourism in Urban Conservation: The Case of Singapore. Cities 5:245-259. Smith, V., ed. 1989 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (2nd ed.), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Tay, E.S. 1991 Heritage Conservation-Political and Social Implications: The Case of Singapore. Singapore Institute of Architects Journal (March/April):37-41. Theobald, W.F., ed. 1994 Global Tourism: The Next Decade. Oxford: Butter-worth-Heinemann. The Straits Times 1989 The Empress Awakes. The Straits Times (25 February):l. 1990a Old Buildings Need Not Fall . . . They Only Go Up in Price. The Straits Times (29 July):2. 1990b Keen CHIT Site Intact. Urged Ex-Students and Teachers. The Straits Times (23 Ma&h):3.” 199Oc CHIJ Premises Should Not Be Commercialised. The Straits Times (7 April): 34. 1990d Old Girls Start Petition to Preserve Dignity of CHIJ Site. The Straits Times (16 June):23. 1991a Re-examine Once More Plan to Destroy Eu Court. The Straits Times (20 March):JO. 1991b Eu Court: First “Domino” in Heritage Row? The Straits Times (20 April): 28. 1991c Demolishing Eu Court for Traffic Will Poison the Air. The Straits Times (30 April):30. 1991d Not Just A Cry for Conservation. The Straits Times (7 May):26. 1991e Courting the Chapel. The Straits Times (6 March):J. 1991f Use Singapore’s Charms, Not Sleaze, To Draw Tourists. The Straits Times (4 Tulv‘):9. Tuan, ?.F.’ 1974 Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Enalewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. URA 1986 Conserving Our Remarkable Past. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority. 1988a Reviving an Old Heart of the City. Skyline 33:3-7. 1988b Master Plan for the Civic and Cultural District. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.

TEO

AND HUANG

615

1988c Civic and Cultural District Master Plan: What Others Have to Say. Skyline 35:2-5. Wong, P.P. 1988 Singapore: Tourism Development Plans. Tourism Management 9:73-76. Yeo, G. 1989 Importance of Heritage and Identity. Speeches 13:47-49. Submitted 12 April 1994 Resubmitted 29 Tulv 1994 Resubmitted 15 August 1994 Accepted 5 September 1994 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Douglas

G. Pearce