HERITAGE AS A TOURISM COMMODITY: TRAVERSING

THE TOURIST-LOCAL DIVIDE

T.C. Chang
Department 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 among
tourists visiting Singapore is a T-shirt which
retails for S$12.00 (approximately US$8.60).
The front of this T-shirt reads Singapore is a
fine city. On the back are displayed a number
of signs proclaiming: No littering, fine
$1,000, No eating and drinking in the MRT,
fine S$500, No spitting, fine S$100 and
other prohibitions and their monetary
penalties. Singapore is indeed a fine city in
many ways and tourists appreciate the self-
deprecating humour of the T-shirt. What the
manufacturers had not anticipated, however,
was how popular the souvenir would also be
with Singaporeans, many of whom proudly
buy 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 a
challenging task trying to cater to the interests of foreign visitors while meeting the needs of the
local community. This paper presents the case of tourism development as a dynamic process in
which the tourist-local divide is negotiated and the welfare of both groups monitored. This
argument 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 tourism
writers is critiqued. I argue that heritage development is geared towards Singaporeans as much as
it is towards tourists, and the effects of commoditisation are not always negative for the host
community. Rather than a static object, heritage is an ever-changing product influenced by the
combined 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 a
more optimistic prognosis on heritage tourism is offered.
commodity, therefore, has an appeal to the
local non-tourist market too; that which is
popular with outsiders also resonates with
the insider crowd.
The souvenir T-shirt illustration is a fitting
metaphor for the multiple roles tourist
attractions are expected to play today. Because
tourist places often cater to the needs and
interests of residents especially in land-scarce
localities, government planning authorities and
tourism enterprises must ensure that the tourist
product is attractive to visitors while also
meeting the social and leisure aspirations of
locals. In many cities, cultural and historical
elements have been appropriated by the leisure
industry and this is manifested in the form of
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 2
urban conservation areas, the adaptive re-use
of old buildings and the development of
festival markets and theme parks with a
heritage flavour (Law, 1993). The objectives
of these projects are multi-faceted: to boost
capital accumulation, promote civic pride and
project 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 also
been raised to warn against the economic
abuses of culture and their resultant outcomes
- the creation of inauthentic landscapes that
speak little of local identities and lifestyles.
Concepts like the commoditisation of culture
(Greenwood, 1977; 1989) and the
manipulation of cultural capital (Kearns &
Philo, 1993) have been developed to call
attention to the detrimental effects of the
heritage industry. As Ashworth and Tunbridge
(1990:54) point out, in the worst case scenario,
tourism is responsible for the bowdlerisation
of history and the reduction of the
complexity and richness of the urban heritage
to a few simple recognisable and marketable
characteristics.
This paper provides a more nuanced
understanding of the role of heritage
commodities as tourist attractions and local
resources. Specifically, it argues that the
development of heritage attractions involves
an attempt at mediating the tourist-local rift,
with government planning authorities and
business enterprises constantly negotiating
between the diverse needs of the two market
segments. Converting cultural items into
tourism products (or cultural commoditisation)
does not have only detrimental effects but has
both positive and negative implications for the
local and tourist communities. Drawing upon
two case studies of heritage development in
Singapore, specifically the development of
boutique hotels and the re-invention of street
activities, the paper explores and documents
the dialectical tension behind the
commoditisation process. As Burtenshaw et
al. (1991:218) have argued, tourism
development seeks to create a saleable
tourism product on the one hand and an
environment for living and working on the
other. To set the context for my argument, the
commoditisation literature is critiqued,
followed by a brief sketch of Singapores urban
planning agenda and some comments on
methodology. The substantive section of the
discussion is devoted to the case studies.
TRAVERSING THE TOURIST-
LOCAL DIVIDE: CONCEPTUAL
VIEWPOINTS
Heritage tourism is defined as the phenomenon
in which the cultural, historical and ethnic
components of a society or place are harnessed
as resources to attract tourists, as well as
develop a leisure and tourism industry
(Hewison, 1987). The heritage tourism
phenomenon has often been criticised for
converting local cultures and lifestyles into
commodities for sale to foreign audiences.
Cultural commoditisation, it is argued,
contributes to the denigration of social
customs, the alienation of residents and the
creation of homogeneity between places. As
Machlis and Burch (1983:684) warn, the
economic allure of tourism and the need to
cater to tourists is a key reason for the mythic
reconstruction of places and the falsification
of histories and identities.
The commoditisation thesis has garnered an
avid following ever since Greenwoods (1977)
seminal paper on the Alarde ritual in
Fuenterrabia, Spain. According to him, what
was once a private ritual commemorating
Fuenterrabias victory over the French in 1638
has become over the course of time a public
performance enacted twice daily for outsiders.
Through commoditisation, the Alarde has been
robbed of its spontaneity and spirit of
voluntarism, and converted into an economic
exercise and an obligation to be avoided
(Greenwood, 1989:178). Indeed, once a
destination area or cultural event is co-opted
by tourism, it becomes a consumer product and
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 47
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 3
risks losing its meaning and significance for
local people and, potentially, its authenticity
to tourists (Sharpley, 1994:129). In what is
best termed the culture of consumption, the
corporate body or government thus gives to
the consumer what he or she wants, and the
emphasis shifts away from the actual artefact
or the place itself (Teo & Yeoh, 1997:194).
This pessimistic portrayal of the
commoditisation process paints only one facet
of the nexus between tourism and heritage
entrepreneurship and precludes the possibility
that cultural commoditisation may also be
undertaken for non-economic reasons with
benefits for the home community as well.
Rather than a vehicle of destruction, is it not
possible to consider tourism as an agent in
cultural renaissance? Where cultural meanings
are altered, is it not possible to point the finger
at other agents of social change? In rethinking
the case of the Alarde, Greenwood (1989:181-
82) is persuaded against his earlier pessimism
and it is worthwhile to quote this change of
heart at some length:
Further reflection on what I wrote
earlier suggested to me the need to place
the process described in the chapter
within a broader context. After all, local
cultures have been transformed by
tourism, but so have they been by
industrialization, urbanization,
pollution, poverty, civil war,
immigration, and a host of other factors.
Does tourism have unique effects? Are
its cultural manifestations always
negative? ... Are we correct that all local
cultural values are being destroyed? Or
are they changing once again, under the
press of circumstance and from their
own internal dynamics ... Some of what
we see as a destruction is construction;
some is the result of a lack of any other
viable options; and some the result of
choices that could be made differently.
A number of important points raised here must
be emphasised to throw light on the wider
context of the heritage commoditisation
process.
First, it is an oversight to consider local
cultures as passive, and proclaim tourism as
the most important agent of social change. An
alternative view would be to regard local
societies as changing all the time and tourism
is only one contributor to the process. As
Wood (1993:66) maintains, there is no such
thing as a pristine pre-tourism cultural
baseline to measure tourisms impact, and our
emphasis would be better focused on the
complex ways tourism enters and becomes
part of an on-going process of symbolic
meaning and appropriation. Cultures and
societies evolve constantly with or without the
aid of tourism and heritage development is
undertaken for diverse reasons. Drawing on
the case of the post-industrial city, Law (1993)
for example, demonstrated that while tourism
plays a significant role in urban restructuring,
it is neither the only nor the chief reason for
change. Communal assertions of identity,
increasing local appreciation of heritage and
civic awareness also contribute to the new
urban renaissance. Changes in the urban
cultural landscapes are best understood as the
outcome of multiple factors interacting with
one another. In this paper, the needs of tourists
and the welfare of locals must be considered
in tandem, and the role of the state or the
entrepreneur should be seen as taking the form
of a cultural broker or middle-person
(after Wood, 1984; Nash, 1977; 1989). Rather
than view tourism as an aggressive external
force intruding upon societies and determining
development processes, we must also
acknowledge the role offered by local or
internal factors.
Second, the commoditisation thesis
portrays the tourist-local balance as tipped in
favour of visitors while the needs of residents
are either marginalised or totally neglected.
Not only does this view fail to appreciate the
non-tourist as a heritage consumer, it also
underestimates the flexibility of those in charge
of heritage development and the malleability
48 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 4
of the heritage product. It is possible for the
heritage entrepreneur and product to serve
multiple goals at one time without alienating
any particular group of people. It is a fallacy
to think that a tourist attraction cannot also be
a recreation site for locals, or a social area of
interaction, or all three simultaneously. In
rebuking the notion that the tourist-historic
city is only for tourists, Ashworth and Voogd
(1990:9) have asserted that precisely the same
physical space, and in practice much the same
facilities and attributes of that space, are sold
simultaneously to different groups of
customers for different purposes. Ashworth
(1990) further offers the example of Groningen
in which the conserved historic city
encompasses touristic, leisure, shopping,
administrative and cultural functions serving
a multitude of users and purposes. Heritage is
not a relic but a dynamic and multi-purpose
resource (Ashworth & Larkham, 1994) or a
form of capital that can be moulded and
transformed for diverse audiences.
The concept of cultural capital further
elucidates the malleability of the tourism
product. While this concept has been used
most often in the context of urban political
economy (Harvey, 1987; 1993; Kearns &
Philo, 1993; Kenny, 1995; Zukin, 1995),
Britton (1991) has urged geographers to adopt
it in exploring changes in the tourist landscape.
This is because the tourism industry, as with
urban development, depends upon place
qualities and cultural distinctiveness to
promote capital accumulation. In her book The
Cultures of Cities, Zukin (1995) offers a
striking example of the transformation of
cultural capital to suit varying market
requirements. Using the case of the
Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art
(MASS MoCA), she shows that the
development of an art museum in the town of
North Adams was originally conceived as a
way to boost arts-based tourism and promote
local craft industries. Over time, however, in
the hope of being integrated into the global
art world, the museum began presenting itself
as a project of international significance
connected with institutions around the world
and largely independent of its local context
(Zukin, 1995:92; original emphasis).
Conceptual avant garde art thus began to
replace folk art, and the MASS MoCA was
designated as an outpost of global culture
rather than a local social institution (Zukin,
1995:103). In the mid-1990s, economic
difficulties forced the museum to restructure
once again, this time by embracing local
groups like seasoned visitors, year-round
residents, regional artists and craftspeople.
Negotiating the tourist-local divide is therefore
inevitable if a heritage attraction wishes to cater
to multiple clientele over the course of time
(see also Teo & Yeoh, 1997).
A third perspective ignored by the
commoditisation school of thought is the
potential benefits derived through heritage
tourism. Critics point to what is commonly
termed inauthenticity as the inevitable
outcome of cultural commoditisation (Cohen,
1988). In urban tourism, heritage development
is criticised for erasing the historical fabric of
the city and replacing it with quaint and
decorative accents geared towards economic
returns (Urry, 1990). It is arrogant, however,
to say that local societies and cultures must
remain exotic in order to be appraised as
authentic by the global traveller. The
commoditisation thesis perpetuates this notion
because it demands that destination areas
remain timeless, static and largely unchanged
by economic and technological forces. It is
often the cynical tourist or critic who wishes
away modernity in the place he or she has come
to visit but as Iyer (1988:14) cautions, what is
considered corruption by the foreigner might
be interpreted as progress by the native.
Unquestionably, heritage conservation
leads to changes in the identity and land uses
of places. However, an alternative way to view
these changes would be to say that zones of
discard are revalorised in the name of urban
boosterism and converted into useful
environments for visitors and locals. In the
well-documented case of Syracuse, heritage
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 49
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 5
enhancement has opened up decaying
industrial warehouses and defunct
manufacturing districts and converted them
into pleasant residential areas, leisure sites,
tourist attractions and places of civic
importance (Roberts & Schein, 1993; Short et
al., 1993; Short, 1995). Although the historical
and 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 the
context of cultural changes in Southeast Asia,
Hitchcock et al. (1993) define tradition as
an ever-evolving set of symbols and meanings
rather than a thing passed from one
generation to another embalmed and
unchanged. To speak of inauthenticity,
therefore, necessarily implies that there is an
authentic set of cultural practices bequeathed
from the past, and any change is prelude to
cultural erosion and the collapse of society.
A reappraisal of the commoditisation theory
is indeed overdue. Heritage tourism products
are geared towards global audiences as well
as home communities, and it is imperative to
explore the heritage development process as
traversing (or attempting to traverse) the
tourist-local divide. The end result is not
always negative as the pessimistic hand-
wringing approach of some writers suggests
(McKean, 1989:120). Rather, heritage
development takes varied forms in different
places depending on the success of the
planning authority or entrepreneur in bridging
the tourist-local rift. This paper investigates
the concerted effort taken in Singapore to cater
to different market groups.
URBAN PLANNING AND
HERITAGE CONSERVATION
IN SINGAPORE
Before exploring the case studies, the wider
context of urban planning and conservation in
Singapore is briefly sketched, with a particular
focus on the reasons which prompted the
governments turn towards urban conservation
in the 1980s and the role of tourism vis--vis
local factors in encouraging this phenomenon.
After independence in 1965, one of the first
priorities of the Singapore government was
slum clearance in the Central Area and
rehousing those affected into public housing
flats in new satellite towns. Throughout the
1960s and 1970s, little emphasis was placed
on identifying historic areas because
conservation was regarded a luxury ill-
afforded by the land-scarce city (Tay, 1991;
Kong & Yeoh, 1994). By the early to mid-
1980s, however, Singapores economic
progress and Singaporeans rising affluence
meant that planning priorities could now shift
to quality of life issues expressed in demands
for distinctive environments and cultural
pursuits (Liu, 1990). Symptomatic of this shift
was the rethinking of state policies on urban
renewal and the call for the conservation of
historic areas and buildings as spelt out by the
Urban Redevelopment Authoritys (URA)
conservation agenda (URA, 1986). Under this
new mindset, ethnic historic sites such as
Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam
were viewed as repositories of the nations fast
vanishing heritage and cultural anchors that
gave young Singaporeans a tangible link to
their roots.
The urban conservation movement
prompted public and academic debate on two
fronts. On the one hand, it highlighted what is
popularly termed the conservation-
redevelopment dilemma (Lee, 1991; Kong &
Yeoh, 1994; Yeoh & Huang, 1996) in which
the governments policy of conserving only
the facades of buildings while radically altering
their internal uses is questioned. In particular,
the conservation exercise is criticised for its
artificial prefabrication of old buildings and
the eradication of traditional activities and
tenants who used to reside there (Lee,
1992:139-40). This point is related to the
second debate which questions the benefits of
urban conservation for locals. This tourist-
local debate (Lee, 1992; Lau, 1993; Chen,
50 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 6
1995; Teo & Huang, 1995) argues that tourism
takes centrestage in urban policies and the
result 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 ask
whether the governments 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?.
That tourism contributes to Singapores
urban redevelopment programme cannot be
denied. A fall in tourist arrivals by 3.5 per
cent in 1983, the first and only time tourist
numbers declined, and modest growth rates
until 1987 were attributed inter alia to
Singapores dull and uninteresting cityscape
(Leong, 1989; Chang et al. 1996.). According
to a Tourism Task Force which was convened
to provide recommendations on revitalising the
tourism product, the countrys loss of
Oriental mystique and charm ... best
symbolised in old buildings, traditional
activities and bustling roadside activities
(Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI),
1984:15) was an impetus for the downturn. A
local newspaper, The Business Times (18
October 1983) put it more bluntly: there is a
dearth of scenery, history and cultural wealth
... made worse by the constant erosion of what
is left of our cultural and architectural heritage
in the name of modernization and
advancement. In a conscious effort to revamp
the tourism product, the MTI in collaboration
with the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board
(STPB) and other statutory boards conceived
a S$1 billion masterplan. Five themes were
selected of which two had a heritage
component focusing on the Exotic East and
Colonial heritage (MTI, 1986).
Although tourism is an important factor
behind Singapores conservation programme,
it is debatable as to whether it constituted the
primary reason. Conservation was undertaken
for varied objectives inspired by local
communal concerns as well as broader global
needs (Chang et al., 1996; Chang, 1997; Yeoh
& Huang, 1996). In a stocktaking account of
Singapores conservation efforts, Liu (1990)
maintained that the interest in heritage in the
mid-1980s was the outcome of changing
community perception towards urban living.
More specifically, this included the demand
for a greater quality of life; reclamation works
which provided ample land for expansion
thereby alleviating the need to tear down
historic areas; and the awakening of
Singaporeans to the need for history and the
demand for a greater variety of leisure outlets
which modern architecture alone cannot offer
(Liu, 1990:7-8). Echoing this view was the
STPB which publicly asserted that its
conservation agenda was propelled by the need
to attract tourists while improving
Singaporeans standard of living so that
Singapore will not only be a great city to visit;
more importantly, it will be an even better city
in 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,
tourisms impact is always played out in an
already dynamic and changing cultural
context and its role must be viewed within
the wider backdrop of local community
change.
The academic discourse on urban
conservation is therefore dominated by the
questions of what is being conserved? and
who benefits from the conservation
exercise? (Tunbridge, 1984; Ashworth &
Tunbridge, 1990). These questions take
centrestage in the conservation-redevelopment
dilemma and the tourist-local debate in
Singapore. It is clear, however, that while
tourism provided an impetus in Singapores
conservation efforts, its role must be viewed
within the panoramic backdrop of changing
social and cultural structures in the country.
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 51
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 7
METHODOLOGICAL
CONCERNS
To substantiate the claims laid out above, the
boutique hotel phenomenon and the re-
invention of street activities in Singapore are
examined. Both case studies focus on the
interface between urban conservation and
tourism, and present a platform for discussing
the potential tensions between locals and
visitors. In interrogating the tourist-local
dialectic, a difficult task is to incorporate a
sense of the unheard local voices,
particularly those of the resident community
whose rights may be trampled upon by
tourism. This study contributes to the tourist-
local debate by focusing attention on a different
set of local agencies, that of an elite local group
of entrepreneurs and capitalists rather than the
general public itself. This is an important
distinction because while the commoditisation
literature has successfully raised awareness of
the importance of local consumer needs, it has
not sufficiently addressed the role played by
enterprises or capitalists in catering to these
needs. The case studies in this paper advance
this latter perspective. They are not intended
to represent all forms of tourism development;
instead they illustrate two different examples
of attempts by local agencies (government
authorities and capitalists) to negotiate the
tourist-Singaporean divide and the divergent
outcomes of cultural commoditisation.
The empirical discussion relies primarily on
qualitative data obtained from informant
interviews with heritage entrepreneurs. All the
interviews focused on the way local enterprises
package a cultural site for tourist consumption
and the way Singaporeans needs have either
been addressed or marginalised through
corporate development. At the time of the
survey (July-September 1995), there were
seven boutique hotels, six in the Central Area
(Table 1; Figure 1). As most of the hotels are
privately owned, interviews were conducted
with their owners. Four hotels participated
while the others declined. In the case of the
Raffles Hotel where an interview was denied,
I spoke instead with the assistant marketing
manager of Raffles International Limited, the
organisation responsible for marketing the
TABLE 1. BOUTIQUE HOTELS IN SINGAPORE: A CLASSIFICATION
NAME OF SIZE LOCATION PRICE THEME OR OWNERSHIP
HOTEL (NUMBER OF RANGE DECOR CONCEPT PATTERN
ROOMS)
Albert Court 136 fringe of Little S$170-280 Peranakan (Straits- Far-East Organisation
India Malaysian)
Chancellor 34 Joo Chiat S$88 - 188 modern (conserved privately owned
shophouse) (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 by
Raffles International
Limited)
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 AM 8
Figure 1. Location of boutique hotels and Bugis Street.
project. For the study of street activities, I
focused on a particular site popular with
tourists and locals - Bugis Street - and
interviews were sought with the operations
manager of Bugis Street Management Pte. Ltd.
and the managing director of a coach tour
company which brings visitors to Bugis Street
regularly. Informant interviews were
supplemented by secondary data sources
gleaned from press clippings and past research
surveys on tourism, particularly those dealing
with public attitudes towards heritage projects
(for example Lee, 1992).
THE COMMODITISATION OF
HERITAGE AND THE
NEGOTIATION OF TOURIST-
LOCAL NEEDS
The two case studies below, of boutique hotels
and street activities, illustrate the dual role of
heritage as tourist attraction and local resource.
The discussion reveals that the tourist-local
divide is often traversed but with differing
outcomes: a possible alienation of locals on
the one hand and a concerted attempt at
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 53
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 9
embracing the needs of the community on the
other.
Adaptive re-use and the boutique
hotel phenomenon
One trend emerging from the conservation
movement is the establishment of boutique
hotels in the 1990s. A boutique hotel may be
defined as a modest-sized establishment,
usually with less than 100 guest rooms,
catering to corporate executives and travellers
wishing for an alternative experience. They
boast a cosy residential ambience, a high staff-
guest ratio and combine old world charm with
modern luxury services (The Straits Times,
17 June 1991). Of the seven boutique hotels
covered in this survey, all but the Raffles Hotel
were the result of the adaptive re-use of old
shophouses/buildings and the gentrification of
ethnic precincts. These hotels mark a radical
departure from the original land uses and
exemplify the tensions between the old and the
new through the imposition of tourist-spaces
in local landscapes.
The commoditisation thesis alleges that
tourism development marginalises locals from
their very own landscape. In Singapore,
boutique hotels may be construed as catering
to the needs and comforts of travellers rather
than the locals living in and around the
conservation district. This is best exemplified
by The Royal Peacock and Chinatown hotels
located in the midst of a residential area in
Keong Saik Road/Teck Lim Road surrounded
by numerous activities still untouched by
gentrification. The glossy facades of the hotels
are a study in contrast from the helter-skelter
environs of Chinatown (Plates 1 & 2). In a
survey of Singaporeans receptiveness towards
the conversion of shophouses into hotels, Lee
(1992:137) revealed that 52.2 per cent were
against the idea while 34.6 per cent welcomed
it. Among the reasons given by the former
Plate 1. The Royal Peacock Hotel is a study of contrast to its neighbouring shophouses
along Keong Saik Road (see Plate 2).
54 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 10
included the need to retain the old flavour and
atmosphere of these places and the fear that
local residents might be displaced (Lee,
1992:138-39). As Lee reasons, Singaporeans
feel that conservation must go beyond just
physical 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 the
needs of tourists with locals, this policy is
applied on a case by case basis depending on
the locality. In Keong Saik Road, the
managers/owners of the hotels are aware of
the disparity between the new and old but they
defend conservation here as an alternative to
demolition, and adaptive re-use as preferable
to the traditional activities and tenants that once
inhabited the buildings. This point is best put
across by Renata Mowbray, then general
manager of The Royal Peacock:
I would be the first to put forward this
charge [that conservation robs the place
of its original residents and activities]
and say that such areas become over
restored. But its either this or total
demolition. Boutique hotels and
souvenir shops are inevitable because
they are tied to the property market
where each shophouse fetches over a
million dollars.... [besides,] Keong Saik
Road has mainly dilapidated
shophouses which were used as
brothels and frequented by those
visiting prostitutes. Many who bemoan
the loss of Chinatown probably never
visit the place anyway but gentrification
would draw them back (personal
interview, 1995).
Once brothels, The Royal Peacock and
Chinatown Hotel buildings today continue to
be surrounded by similar activities in one of
Plate 2. Pre-conservation shophouses along Keong Saik Road.
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 55
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 11
Singapores foremost red-light districts. The
derelict structures and tawdry image of Keong
Saik and Teck Lim Roads have become a
disincentive for families staying there. At the
same time, peculiarly, this image adds to the
intrigue of the area because tourists find the
place colourful and naughtily interesting. For
this reason, Anita Tang, general manager of
the Chinatown Hotel, sees very little conflict
between the intrusions of the new upon the old
and between the image of a red-light district
and a glitzy heritage inn:
Conservation has done good to the area
because previously the place was all
dilapidated. As for Singaporeans
having a sense of affiliation to
Chinatown, its only the few old
residents living here, and they are
prepared to leave anyway ... We feel
Tanjong Pagar is rich in culture. This
may be a red-light area but that adds
colour to the place. The funny people
know we are a serious business so they
dont come to interfere (personal
interview, 1995).
Adaptive re-use rids the locality of its
unsavoury activities, improves the structure of
buildings and regenerate what were previously
zones of discard. At the same time, history
and collective memory are sanitised to attract
visitors and boost the tourism economy.
Gentrification might have altered the original
look and activities in the area but, according
to Mowbray, has also encourage[d]
Singaporeans back to discover their roots.
The gentrification of Keong Saik and Teck
Lim Roads has not compromised the welfare
of remaining residents. Today the two roads
are being rapidly transformed with the opening
of three more hotels (The Keong Saik Hotel,
Tropical Hotel and The Regal Inn) as well as
several restaurants and interior design offices.
Concessions have been made to ensure that
these alien enterprises do not interrupt the
original lifestyle of residents. For example,
the two new restaurants Cafe Operetta and
Streeters Wine Bar and Grill have been
prohibited by the Liquors Licensing Board to
serve alcohol in their outdoor premises.
Although no reason was given for the ban, it
is generally felt that a thriving pub scene would
attract a boisterous crowd that might
compromise public safety and contribute to
noise pollution. According to John Chang,
head of media relations in the Singapore Police
Force:
Keong Saik Road is a relatively quiet
area, especially in the evening, and if
pubs are allowed to operate there, the
noise generated may cause annoyance
to the residents. Rowdiness and
drunken brawls, which are associated
with pub operations, may threaten the
safety of the residents ( The Straits
Times, 17 December 1996).
While outdoor cafes are prohibited from selling
alcohol, indoor establishments such as the
Butterfly Cafe in The Royal Peacock are not
affected. The need to contain noise and
rowdiness within closed quarters, and the
banning of outdoor pub activities are measures
designed with residents in mind. While such
measures impinge upon the rights of the
restauranteurs and visitors to the area, they are
nonetheless imposed and stringently upheld for
the benefit of the neighbourhood. Unlike
Tanjong Pagar, therefore, where on-site
residents have all but shifted out and where
the pub scene is vibrant (Lau, 1993), Keong
Saik Streets nightlife is sedate and quiet.
Akin to the alleged isolation of locals is the
notion of a tourist enclave. This is a particular
problem which the Raffles Hotel has had to
overcome (Plate 3). When the Raffles
reopened in 1991 after a S$160 million
restoration project, the 104 suites-only hotel
was proclaimed the most luxurious in the city,
and with rooms going between S$650-6,000
per night, the most expensive as well. The
Raffles Hotel was marketed as a world-famous
historic landmark targeting as its guests the
top end of the corporate market - the upper
56 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 12
end of the leisure-travel market for whom
money is no object (The Business Times, 17
September 1991). The exclusivity of the hotel
has been regarded by some as lacking a local
identity - a place which does not seem to
belong to the average class of Singaporeans
(Teo & Huang, 1995:610). In the words of an
architect, the hotel exudes a stiff and perfect-
to-the-point-of-clinical atmosphere that makes
one feel that one will probably be reprimanded
for shifting the ashtray (The Straits Times, 28
February 1992). What was once a colonial
hangout is now considered a tourist enclave
which continues that grand old tradition of
imperial hype (The Straits Times, 18 October
1991). As a journalist wryly asked before the
commencement of restoration, is the 102-year
old hotel really Singaporean enough to be
worth restoring? (The Straits Times, 15 March
1989).
That the Raffles Hotel chose to target the
upper end of the tourist audience is entirely a
case of niche marketing. What is interesting,
however, was that its developer and marketing
agent had anticipated the problems of
niching and deliberately incorporated in its
restoration plan a shopping gallery annexed
to the back of the hotel. Simply known as
Raffles, the architectural style of this new
three-storey building is identical to the hotels
and comprises a range of shops, cafeterias, a
museum and a Victorian-style playhouse
aimed at the general public (Plate 4). Its ample
outdoor dining area and landscaped gardens
are also open to everybody. This dual-market
strategy - Raffles Hotel for upmarket tourists
and Raffles for the common folk - effectively
creates a multi-functional site. According to
S.L. Chandran of DBS Land, the hotel and its
shopping complex will basically cater for two
conflicting crowds with their architectural
styles serving as an integral link (The Business
Times, 25-26 March 1989). Referring to
shopping 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.
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 57
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 13
out that while Not everybody will be able to
find a room here [at the Raffles Hotel] ... [but]
almost everybody can have a Raffles
experience (The Business Times, 17
September 1991). Although there are no
statistics to confirm the number of tourists and
Singaporeans passing through, James Ong, the
assistant marketing manager of Raffles
International Limited, claimed that the
optimum market mix in any heritage project
is 60 per cent visitors and 40 per cent locals
(personal interview, 1995). Heritage
development should augment Singapores
tourism potential while developing local pride,
and tourist traps must be avoided because
tourists like to go where locals go (personal
interview, 1995). For this reason, the food
outlets at Raffles are diversely ranged to cater
to the different tastes and budgets of locals and
tourists.
The dual-market strategy at the Raffles
Hotel is also exemplified by the other inns. The
Royal Peacock, Inn of the Sixth Happiness and
The Duxton depend heavily on locals to sustain
their food and beverage outlets. Located in
the Central Area, the hotels market
aggressively to attract lunch and dinner crowds
from adjacent Shenton Way, Singapores
business and financial district. The symbolic
importance attached to heritage is indicated by
the new-meets-old, East-meets-West ambience
which these hotels purport as their selling
point. The Philip Starck meets Chinatown
theme at The Royal Peacock, the traditional
Oriental ambience in the Inn of the Sixth
Happiness and the refined European elegance
of The Duxton are marketing themes aimed at
local yuppies and Western tourists. Much like
Britains townhouse hotels (Brooke, 1995) or
the small historic inns of Europe (Barrett,
Plate 4. The Raffles - a shopping, food and entertainment complex geared towards the
general public.
58 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 14
1986), Singapores shophouse hotels
symbolise a global trend in alternative period
accommodation. Heritage serves as a marker
of exclusivity and distinction, and a
competitive tool in differentiating such hotels
from others. Towards this end, different decor
concepts have been selected to convey
authenticity and difference (Table 1).
Following Silvers concept of chic travel,
boutique hotels offer a touch of luxury off the
beaten track and are sold to an elitist clientele
who come to view their experiences as more
authentic than those of mass tourists, while also
more luxurious, and perhaps cleaner, than
alternative travel (Silver, 1993:315).
Finally, the power of the local is also seen
in the ownership patterns of hotels. Unlike the
large modern hotels of the 1970s which were
owned by foreign companies (Ow, 1984), the
trend towards boutique establishments marks
a shift towards local ownership (The Royal
Peacock, The Duxton and Chancellor hotels)
and family-based entrepreneurship (Inn of the
Sixth Happiness and Chinatown Hotel) (Table
1). The boutique inns are not franchises of
transnational hotel chains; in fact, in some
cases, they even represent the flagship
establishment of a potential new chain of inns.
The Lin family who owns the Inn of the Sixth
Happiness, for example, have since expanded
their concept of the Chinese-heritage hotel to
Malaysia under the Asiatic House (or A-
House) Group. Similarly, the owner/manager
of the Chinatown has further plans for
development in Vietnam and Indonesia. The
boutique hotel phenomenon thus offers a
unique opportunity for small local
entrepreneurs to flourish in the mega-tourism
industry. This is in line with the STPBs goal
of developing a regional wing and an
external economy for the tourism industry
(STPB, 1996).
Heritage re-invention and the
transformation of street activities
Another example of the commoditisation of
heritage is offered by the case of street
activities which, over the course of time, have
been banned, resurrected and re-introduced as
tourist attractions. As part of the drive towards
modernisation in the 1960s and 1970s, many
squatter areas in Singapores Central Area
were demolished along with their street
activities which included bazaars, outdoor wet
markets as well as informal dining and
shopping places. This policy was essential
because the state wanted to impart an image
of urban planning, government control and
modernity (Savage, 1992:19). The states
commitment to urban modernisation, however,
was softened in part by the 1983 tourism crisis
and the Tourism Task Forces (TTF) view that
Singapore was losing many historic areas of
interest. The TTF also mentioned reviving
street life as an integral aspect in tourist
promotion (MTI, 1984:15). Reviving street
activities, however, posed certain challenges.
The government realised the importance of the
picturesque old on the one hand, and the
need to impart an image of modernity befitting
a newly independent state on the other. Hence,
while tourists may be intrigued by the
surviving aspects of the antique, the ethnic
and the primitive, these may also be the
traditional and regressive elements of
indigenous culture which the national
government is desperately trying to reform (or
forget) (Turner & Ash, 1975:140). The
revival of street activities thus illustrates the
dilemma of catering to tourists and locals, and
I shall substantiate this argument by looking
at the pasar malam and the re-invention of
Bugis Street.
The pasar malam (literally night market
in Malay) is an informal outdoor shopping
event which caters to and attracts itinerant
hawkers, food stalls, makeshift shops and
Singaporeans looking for bargains. Although
tourists patronise the pasar malams, they are
certainly not staged for visitors and make
no pretense at being so. Pasar malams are
usually organised on public roads closed for
the evenings to vehicles. In 1975, the Ministry
of Environment (MOE) began phasing out
night markets and, in 1978, banned them
altogether on the basis that they caused traffic
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 59
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 15
congestion and pollution of public streets, and
posed a health hazard through their sale of food
items. In Chinatown, 700 hawkers were shifted
indoors into the new Chinatown Complex in
1983 while in Little India food stalls and
itinerant hawkers were rehoused in the multi-
storey Zhu Jiao Centre.
With the onset of the tourism crisis in 1983
and the TTFs encouragement to revive street
activities, policies banning night markets were
gradually reversed. In 1985, barely one and a
half years after they were banned from
Chinatown, the STPB together with the Kreta
Ayer Citizens Consultative Committee
resurrected outdoor hawking as part of the
Chinese New Year celebrations. A festival of
lights was organised and foodstalls selling
traditional tidbits erected. The revival of
outdoor activities, however, did not signal an
endorsement of pollutive activities and their
attendant problems. In an effort to uphold
public hygiene, grassroots leaders proposed to
the MOE limits they would voluntarily adhere
to. These included a ban on cars, participation
of only 200 stall holders, sale of pre-cooked
food and the use of disposable plates and
utensils (The Straits Times, 7 January 1986).
The STPB also organised similar outdoor
activities in Little India and Geylang Serai
during the Deepavali and Hari Raya Puasa
festivities respectively.
While the resurrection of night markets was
aimed at residents, there have been occasions
when they were geared exclusively towards
visitors. In 1985, for example, the STPB
obtained clearance from the MOE to revive
pasar malams in the pristine outdoor
compound of the Singapore Handicraft Centre.
A number of changes were introduced such as
the sale of souvenirs and a ban on food items
and old products. This move was later
criticised because the raison detre of pasar
malams was the availability of secondhand
goods and food items for the local populace in
an informal and often chaotic outdoor setting.
Most uncharacteristically, therefore, the scene
at the handicraft centre was sedate with no
noisy haggling and a limited variety of stalls
manned by well dressed vendors (The Straits
Times, 8 April 1985). A spokesperson for the
STPB justified this oversight by saying:
We are not the Peoples Association,
concerned with organising things for
locals. We are the Singapore Tourist
Promotion Board, so when organising
something, we must have the tourist as
the main objective (The Straits Times,
16 June 1985).
In May 1986, however, the STPB began
introducing food stalls and encouraging
vendors to sell household goods and local
items. When this proved popular with tourists
and residents, more pasar malams were
revived for specific tourist events such as the
convention of the American Society of Travel
Agents in September 1986 and the Miss
Universe Pageant in May 1987 (The Straits
Times, 21 July 1987). As Sharon Wong,
STPBs divisional director of tourism services
conceded, we have found from our research
that a place must be first popular with the local
community before it begins attracting the
tourists (The Straits Times, 23 May 1986).
What were once spontaneous street activities
catering to locals have thus been transformed
into state sanctioned events orchestrated at
specific sites and for tourist-related purposes.
Singaporeans nonetheless welcome, the return
of night markets because they evoke nostalgic
memories, provide an added source of income
for merchants, and generate amusement for
tourists without explicitly offering the latter
any preferential treatment (Lee, 1992:142).
The changing forms of this particular heritage
product illustrate that cultures and traditions
are not static, and locals can indeed be
persuaded to accept state-induced and tourism-
related modifications.
On the other hand, the return of the
infamous Bugis Street has been the outcome
of policy reversals targeted principally at
tourists. From the 1940s, Bugis Street was well
known as a nocturnal dining and shopping
60 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 16
street reputed for its availability of cheap beer
and Chinese food and the added risque
atmosphere provided by prostitutes and
flamboyantly dressed transvestites (Lim,
1979:53-54). In particular, the parade of
transvestites which began every midnight
either soliciting for clients or taking photos
with visitors for S$5 a copy became Bugis
Streets claim to infamy. Although it was
never promoted by the STPB, Bugis Street was
rated one of Asias top ten attractions (The
Straits Times, 8 November 1993). As S.K. Lee,
then project manager of Bugis Street
Development said:
... flamboyant transvestites were a
paradigm of a product we didnt know
[what] to do with. While the
phenomenon lasted, it was something
of an official embarrassment. For the
tourists who thronged the area, part of
the charm of Bugis Street came from it
being a social pimple on clean, green
and apparently straight-laced Singapore
(The Straits Times, 13 July 1986).
In a country which banned jukeboxes, long hair
and later chewing gum, Bugis Street was an
unusual attraction, a venue where the
participants could engage, albeit fleetingly, in
deviant behaviour in a highly structured and
disciplined society (Kuah, 1994:180).
In 1985, the state demolished Bugis Street
to make way for the development of a Mass
Rapid Transit Station and in an effort to rid
what it perceived as a blemish on the smooth
cheek of a garden city (The Straits Times, 6
October 1985). This move was widely
condemned by members of the tourism
industry. Several hotels and travel agents
pleaded with the STPB for the return of Bugis
Street, and the STPB in turn brought the matter
to the Ministry of National Development. In
a surprise change of mind (The Straits Times,
9 October 1985), the ministry approved plans
to reconstruct Bugis Street on a plot of land
on the opposite side of Victoria Street just 120
m from the original (Figure 1) because of its
enormous tourism potential. Unlike its
predecessor which comprised independent
hawkers and stall holders, the new Bugis Street
(originally renamed Bugis Square but has since
reverted to its old name) has been developed
and managed by commercial enterprises.
Bugis Square, which opened in December
1989 at a cost of S$15 million, is an exact
replica of the old street surrounded by six
blocks of low-rise buildings collectively
named Bugis Village (Plate 5). In keeping with
the old-world ambience, street furniture and
certain architectural features were replicated,
and fortune tellers, shoeshine boys, clog
makers as well as the original food and drink
operators 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 in
simulating the ambience of Bugis Street, there
was to be no concession for dirty streets, poor
sanitation and the transvestites. For the first
time, therefore, Bugis Street was promoted by
the STPB in its guidebook as a new version
of Asias most famous outdoor food and
entertainment spot ... an atmosphere thats even
better than the old ... [with] a more serious
attitude towards hygiene with modern
kitchens (STPB, 1991:26-28). Transvestites
were unwelcome because of the need to
provide clean family entertainment and
maintain a wholesome atmosphere. Hence, its
developers have promoted the place as a
vibrant haunt, a street that never sleeps,
where one can wine, dine and have street party
fun and games without the transvestites (The
Straits Times, 8 November 1993). The new
Bugis Street is very much, therefore, a
compromise to balance [the] need of
attracting tourists and maintaining a
wholesome atmosphere that will appeal to
Singaporeans (The Straits Times, 18 April
1992).
Since reopening in 1991, however,
patronage has been extremely poor. Almost
immediately, the transvestites were broached
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 61
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 17
as a possible strategy to draw back the crowds;
the proponents argued that the transvestites are
the star attractions and should be reinstated
along with the other accoutrements of the
place. The government thought otherwise.
When two spontaneous transvestite shows
were staged in Bugis Square in January 1992,
the law came down heavily on those
responsible (The Straits Times, 8 November
1993). Yet, the STPB was not above
organising a similar show during a luncheon
it hosted for the 41st Annual Conference of
the Pacific Area Travel Association (PATA)
in Hong Kong and again at a Singapore
Airlines (SIA) party celebrating its inaugural
flight to South Africa in 1992. Explained a
STPB spokesperson:
The whole idea was to draw the
attention of those in the tourist trade to
the fact that Bugis Street is back. It
succeeded in creating publicity among
the travel trade to promote Singapore
as a fun and entertaining place (The
Straits Times, 18 April 1992).
In yet another turn of events in April 1992,
the management of Bugis Street with full state
endorsement decided to hire four transsexuals
as customer relations officers to explain the
history and nightlife of Bugis Street to visitors.
The transsexuals were to be employed on a
month basis and watched by plainclothes
police through close-circuit television (The
Straits Times, 20 April 1992). However,
following an avalanche of criticisms pertaining
to the authorities crass commercialism and
its coarse pandering to a kind of voyeurism
(The Business Times, 30-31 May 1992), the
policy was rescinded after two weeks. Today,
the only memory of the transvestites is evoked
through the jokes and skits performed nightly
in the cabaret Boom Boom Room located in
Bugis Square. As Leong (1989:371) aptly
notes, Bugis Street is an example of a tourist
area that falls or rises according to shifting
political and economic interests.
The transvestite debate is by no means over.
When Ivan Tan, then operations manager of
Bugis 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 AM 18
1995, he claimed that plans were underway to
reintroduce transvestites as participants of
cultural dance troops and to bring their
performances onto public stages. As cultural
dancers, he hoped the government would close
a blind eye and that tourists and locals will be
attracted. The transvestite dilemma amplifies
the radical changes that have occurred in Bugis
Street and the difficulty in replicating
originality. The residents who used to live
in Bugis Street have now relocated and many
of the original hawkers have fled because of
increased rents.
1
The spontaneous chaos of
Old Bugis Street has now been replaced with
a bureaucratic set-up geared entirely to
attracting shoppers/diners and making a profit
(Kuah, 1994:180). While Singaporeans still
shop and eat in Bugis Street, its local identity
has waned:
The new Bugis Street, in the eyes of
the local population, is reinvented for
the tourists. Places and events invented
for the tourists involve a sense of
artificiality. Like so many socially
constructed places, it represents, to the
locals, an unauthentic manufactured
heritage no matter how good the
reproduction is. And this manufactured
heritage does not belong to them. To
many locals, the old represents the
totality of life itself where the good and
the bad came as a package deal. But
the reinvented one lacks this sentiment
and is an empty shell. It also serves to
highlight the great divide between
perceptions of what is Singaporean and
what is not. In short, Bugis Street no
longer belongs to the people; it has been
appropriated by the STPB for the
tourists (Kuah, 1994:181).
The Pannell Kerr Forster Plan echoed a similar
point when it warned that the old Bugis Street
had a difficult-to-duplicate mix of surprise,
mystery and naughtiness and the lesson to be
learnt is that people create their own people
places, not planners or producers (Pannell
Kerr Forster, 1986:V26-27).
Bugis Street, however, may become more
popular in the future. Presently, three groups
of patrons are identified: the morning/day
crowds comprising local shoppers and diners
(Plate 6); the evening crowds comprising
tourists and locals; and the midnight crowd of
curious visitors and single men (Kuah,
1994:176). According to Ivan Tan, tourists
dominate weekdays whereas Singaporeans
form the bulk of weekend patrons. Comparing
Bugis Street to Newton Food Centre, a
government-built outdoor hawker centre, Tan
confided: Newton suffered for the first five
years but after that, Singaporeans began to
accept the place and saw it less as a tourist
attraction. We hope that in time Singaporeans
too will accept Bugis Street as their own
(personal interview, 1995). Leslie Choudhury
whose tour company regularly brings visitors
to Bugis Street similarly contends that
conserved districts may not initially look aged
or anything, but in a couple of years ... [they]
will strangely enough acquire a more
comfortable look of authenticity (personal
interview, 1993). Urban conservation in
Singapore does not entail the preservation of
buildings unaltered, embalmed, or made into
museum pieces (Burke, 1976:133) but
involves a dynamic process whereby buildings
are architecturally maintained but functionally
altered for contemporary needs. Heritage is
malleable because [n]o culture or society can
be static; [and] new cultural products emerge
and, therefore, emergent authenticity (Cohen,
1988a) is a valid and realistic process within
the context of tourism (Sharpley, 1994:136,
original emphasis). As a commodity, Bugis
Streets local identity may strengthen rather
than diminish with time.
CONCLUSION
We often think of attractions and tourism
policies as targeting the needs and interests of
1
In late 1995, for example, the monthly rental charge for
a single pushcart stall was S$1,350 while that for a shop
space in Bugis Village was S$3,500.
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 63
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 19
foreign visitors. This is not an inaccurate
assumption when the welfare of the local
community is also acknowledged in the
process, a perspective often overlooked. In
this paper, I have argued that heritage
development is a dynamic process which
traverses the tourist-local divide, and
substantiated the argument along three lines
of enquiry, using the case studies of boutique
hotels and street activities.
First, the notion that heritage development
is necessarily dictated by tourists desires was
challenged. Local factors are implicated in the
heritage turn too as evidenced by the
governments urban conservation programme
in the 1980s, and the transvestite dilemma in
Bugis Street which unfolded amidst competing
claims by tourists and Singaporeans.
Unquestionably, heritage products like the
boutique hotels and Bugis Street are popular
with tourists but this does not preclude the
possibility of Singaporeans functioning as
consumers too. While the hotels cater to local
executives working in the vicinity, Bugis Street
is an increasingly popular shopping and dining
destination for many locals. Heritage
conservation is simultaneously propelled by
local demands for cultural and leisure pursuits
as well as tourism. The commoditisation
process should therefore be viewed not so
much as a tourism-induced phenomenon but
the outcome of the ebb and flow of power
between contending exogenous forces and
endogenous factors (Nash, 1989).
Second, this paper also dismissed the notion
of inauthenticity by arguing that heritage is
dynamic and ever changing. In the case of
boutique hotels, the gentrification of
Chinatown and the adaptive re-use of old
shophouses have not led to cultural erosion;
on the contrary, they celebrate local heritage
albeit in a new and different form. The
eradication of brothels along Keong Saik Road
and the infusion of enterprises and food outlets
Plate 6. Bugis Streets foodstalls and shopping bazaar are becoming increasingly popular
with Singaporeans.
64 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:27 AM 20
have opened up what was once a seedy
neighbourhood to increasing number of
Singaporeans. The dynamic nature of heritage
is also exemplified by the changing form of
street activities. Both pasar malams and Bugis
Street were originally frowned upon and
demolished but were later reintroduced and
transformed into attractions. Spontaneous
activities have thus become state sanctioned
events organised under strictly regulated
conditions, yet local patronage at these events
has increased rather than declined. Local
societies are adaptive and resilient towards
tourisms intrusion and it would be inaccurate
to portray commoditisation as bearing only
negative effects (Wood, 1993: 55). The new
pasar malams and Bugis Street are popular
because of their skilful blend of modernity,
cleanliness and authenticity, an indication
of the successful re-invention of tradition.
Finally, heritage commoditisation is
portrayed as a negotiation process controlled
by local agencies concerned with bridging the
tourist-local divide. This paper focused on
government authorities and heritage
entrepreneurs who are in a unique position to
mediate between different market needs and
steer a course through conflicting demands
(Chang et al. 1996). In urban planning in
Western Europe, for example, Burtenshaw et
al. (1991: 218) have argued that tourism
planning policies fulfill reconciliatory roles
aimed at creating a viable tourism product and
a pleasant working and living environment.
This has also been the case of Singapore as
evidenced by the Raffles Hotel restoration
which integrates the needs of locals with those
of upmarket tourists, and the STPB policies
on heritage conservation which targets
Singaporeans as its beneficiaries. In land
scarce Singapore, heritage sites serve as
multifunctional urban space[s] catering
tomultimotivated user[s] (Ashworth &
Tunbridge, 1990:90), and planning authorities
and tourism enterprises strive to traverse the
tourist-local rift.
Conceiving of tourism as the dominant
force which impacts local societies and
denigrates cultural forms yields an incomplete
picture of the tourism development process.
Tourism is only one contributor to socio-
cultural change, and the role played by local
factors must be acknowledged along with the
positive aspects of tourist development.
Writing in the context of ethnic tourism and
commoditisation in rural China, Oakes
(1995:10) echoes this view when he argued
that tourism is an adopted component of a
local cultures internal dynamics of on-going
change, rather than a force bearing down upon
locals while remaining beyond their grasp.
As the Singapore case studies similarly testify,
the adaptive re-use of old shophouses and the
re-invention of street activities have been
inspired by reasons other than tourism, and the
local community benefits from these processes.
Heritage commoditisation thus embodies
multiple goals, serves diverse audiences and
effect different outcomes in different places.
Future studies in tourism must therefore
address the broader context in which
conservation and development occur in order
to arrive at a more nuanced understanding of
the nexus between heritage entrepreneurship
and tourism.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professors Jan Lundgren,
Simon Milne and Jeanne Wolfe of McGill
University, Montreal, for their helpful
comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Any
omissions and mistakes are solely my
responsibility.
REFERENCES
Ashworth, G. (1990) The historic cities of
Groningen: which is sold to whom?, in G.
Ashworth and B. Goodall (eds.),Marketing
Tourism Places, London: Routledge, 138-
55.
Ashworth, G. & Voogd, H. (1990) Can places
be sold for tourism?, in G. Ashworth and
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 65
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM 21
B. Goodall (eds.), Marketing Tourism
Places, London: Routledge, 1-16.
Ashworth, G.J. & Larkham, P.J. (eds.) (1994)
Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture
and Identity in the New Europe,London:
Routledge.
Ashworth, G.J. & Tunbridge, J.E. (1990) The
Tourist-Historic City, London: Belhaven
Press.
Barrett, P. (1986) Old Buildings - New
Accommodation, London: British Travel
Education Trust.
Britton, S. (1991) Tourism, capital, and place:
towards a critical geography of tourism,
Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space, 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 Western
Perspective, London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Chang, T.C. (1997) From Instant Asia to
Multi-faceted Jewel: Urban imaging
strategy and tourism development in
Singapore, Urban Geography, 18(6), in
press.
Chang, T.C., Milne, S., Fallon, D. &
Pohlmann, C. (1996) Urban heritage
tourism: The global-local nexus, Annals
of Tourism Research, 23(2), 284-305.
Chen, A. (1995) Urban Conservation and
Heritage Tourism: A Case Study of Clarke
Quay, unpubl. Honours Thesis,
Department of Geography, National
University of Singapore.
Cohen, E. (1988) Authenticity and
commoditization in tourism, Annals of
Tourism Research, 16(3), 371-86.
Greenwood, D.J. (1977) Culture by the
pound: An anthropological perspective on
tourism as cultural commoditization, in
V. Smith (ed.), Hosts and Guests: The
Anthropology of Tourism, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 129-47.
Greenwood, D.J. (1989) Culture by the
pound: an anthropological perspective on
tourism as cultural commodification, in V.
Smith (ed.), Hosts and Guests: The
Anthropology of Tourism, Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 171-85.
Harvey, D. (1987) Flexible accumulation
through urbanisation: Reflections on post-
modernism in the American city,
Antipode, 19(3), 260-86.
Harvey, D. (1993) From space to place and
back again: Reflections on the condition
of post-modernity, in J. Bird, B. Curtis,
T. Putnam, G. Robertson & L. Tickner
(eds.), Mapping the Futures: Local
Cultures, 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. King
and M. Parnwell (eds.), Tourism in
Southeast Asia, London: Routledge, 1-31.
Iyer, P. (1988) Video Night in Kathmandu: And
Other Reports From the Not-So-Far-East,
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Kearns, G. & Philo, C. (eds.) (1994) Selling
Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past
and Present, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kenny, J.T. (1995) Making Milwaukee
famous: Cultural capital, urban image, and
the politics of place, Urban Geography,
16(5), 440-58.
Kong, L. & Yeoh, B.S.A. (1994) Urban
conservation in Singapore: A survey of
state policies and popular attitudes, Urban
Studies, 31(2) , 247-65.
Kuah, K.E. (1994) Bugis Street in Singapore:
Development, conservation and the
reinvention of cultural landscape, in M.
Askew and W.S. Logan (eds.) Cultural
Identity and Urban Change in Southeast
66 Chang
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM 22
Asia: Interpretative Essays, Geelong:
Deakin University Press, 167-85.
Lau, P.W.P. (1993) The Conservation of
Tanjong Pagar: Public Attitudes and State
Policies, unpubl. Honours Thesis,
Department of Geography, National
University of Singapore.
Law, C.M. (1993) Urban Tourism: Attracting
Visitors to Large Cities, London: Mansell
Publishing Limited.
Lee, E.K.Y. (1992) Host Acceptance of
Tourists in Singapore, unpubl. Honours
Thesis, 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 in
Singapore 1950-1977, unpubl. Honours
Thesis, Department of History, University
of Singapore.
Liu, T.K. (1990) Singapores experience in
conservation, paper presented at the
International Symposium on Preservation
and Modernisation of Historic Cities,
Beijing, China, 15-18 August 1990.
Machlis, G. & Burch, W. (1983) Relations
between strangers: Cycles of structure and
meaning in tourist systems, The
Sociological Review, 31(4), 666-92.
McKean, P. (1989) Towards a theoretical
analysis of tourism: Economic dualism and
cultural involution in Bali, in V. Smith
(ed.), Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology
of Tourism, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 119-38.
Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) (1984)
Report of the Tourism Task Force,
Singapore: MTI.
MTI (1986) Tourism Product Development
Plan, Singapore: Ministry of Trade and
Industry and the Singapore Tourist
Promotion Board.
Nash, D. (1977) Tourism as a form of
imperialism, in V. Smith (ed.), Hosts and
Guests. The Anthropology of Tourism,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 33-47.
Nash D. (1989) Tourism as a form of
imperialism, in V. Smith (ed.), Hosts and
Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 37-52.
Oakes, T. (1995) Tourism in Guizhou: Sense
of place and the commerce of authenticity,
unpubl. paper presented at the Association
of American Geographers 91st Annual
Meeting in Chicago, U.S.A., 14-18 March
1995.
Ow, Y.P. (1984), Hotels in Singapore, unpubl.
Honours Thesis, Department of
Geography, National University of
Singapore.
Pannell Kerr Forster (1986) Tourism
Development in Singapore: A Report by
Pannell Kerr Forster, Singapore: Product
Development Division, Singapore Tourist
Promotion Board.
Roberts, S.M. & Schein, L. (1993) The
entrepreneurial city: Fabricating urban
development in Syracuse, New York, The
Professional Geographer, 45(1), 21-33.
Savage, V. (1992) Street culture in colonial
Singapore, in B.H. Chua & N. Edwards
(eds.), Public Space: Design, Use and
Management, Singapore: Singapore
University Press, 11-23.
Sharpley, R. (1994) Tourism, Tourists and
Society, Huntington: ELM Publications.
Short, J.R. (1996) The Urban Order: An
Introduction to Cities, Culture, and Power,
Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Short, J.R., Benton, L.M., Luce, W.B. &
Walton, J. (1993) Reconstructing the
image of an industrial city, Annals of the
Heritage as a Tourism Commodity 67
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM 23
Association of American Geographers,
83(2), 207-24.
Silver, I. (1993) Marketing authenticity in
Third World country, Annals of Tourism
Research, 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 Tourism
Capital, Singapore: Singapore Tourist
Promotion Board and the National Tourism
Plan Committees.
Tay, K.S. (1991) Heritage conservation -
political and social implications: The case
of Singapore, Singapore Institute of
Architects Journal, March/April no. 165,
37-41.
Teo, P. & Huang, S. (1995) Tourism and
heritage conservation in Singapore,
Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 589-
615.
Teo, P. & Yeoh, B.S.A. (1997) Remaking
local heritage for tourism, Annals of
Tourism Research, 24(1), 192-213.
The Business Times, various issues, Singapore.
The Straits Times, various issues, Singapore.
Tunbridge, J.E. (1984) Whose heritage to
conserve? Cross-cultural reflections upon
Uzzell, D. (1989) Heritage Interpretation: The
Natural and Built Environment, London:
Belhaven Press.
Wood, R. (1984) Ethnic tourism, the state and
cultural change in Southeast Asia, Annals
of Tourism Research, 11(3), 353-74.
Wood, R. (1993) Tourism, culture, and the
sociology 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) The
conservation-redevelopment dilemma in
Singapore: The case of the Kampong Glam
Historic District, Cities, 13(6), 411-22.
Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities,
Cambridge: Blackwell.
68 Chang
political dominance and urban heritage
conservation, The Canadian Geographer,
28(1), 171-80.
Turner, L. & Ash, J. (1975) The Golden
Hordes: International Tourism and the
Pleasure Periphery, London: Constable.
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)
(1986) Conserving Our Remarkable Past,
Singapore: URA.
Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and
Travel in Contemporary Societies,London:
Sage Publications.
CHANG.PM6 5/13/97, 10:28 AM 24