-
This article was downloaded by: [NUS National University of
Singapore]On: 25 March 2015, At: 05:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma
Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UK
Tourism Recreation ResearchPublication details, including
instructions for authors and subscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Cases from
Malaysia,Singapore and the PhilippinesJoan C. Henderson Associate
Professoraa Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological
University, Nanyang Avenues, Singapore 639798. e-mail:Published
online: 12 Jan 2015.
To cite this article: Joan C. Henderson Associate Professor
(2012) Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Cases from
Malaysia,Singapore and the Philippines, Tourism Recreation
Research, 37:1, 47-55, DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2012.11081687
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2012.11081687
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy
of all the information (the Content) contained in thepublications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or
endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary
sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses,
damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
-
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 37(1), 2012: 47-55
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Cases from Malaysia,
Singapore and the Philippines
JOAN C. HENDERSON Abstract: The paper discusses issues of
heritage, conservation, development and tourism within a South East
Asian context. It focuses on circumstances in the city state of
Singapore and the countries of Malaysia and the Philippines and
their capitals with particular attention given to three case
studies of heritage districts in these cities. There is shown to be
an official appreciation of the many roles played by heritage,
including that of tourist attraction, and awareness of its
economic, socio-cultural and political value. Nevertheless and
despite government protestations of support, remaining built
heritage appears to be at risk from various forces such as neglect,
insufficient funding and over-commercialisation. Development
imperatives are a major threat and securing a balance between them
and heritage conservation is a formidable challenge for urban
authorities.
Keywords: heritage attractions; heritage conservation; Malaysia;
Singapore; the Philippines.
Introduction The objective of this paper is to assess the
meanings
and significance attached to heritage and its conservation by
governments in Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. Three case
studies from the capital dties are presented as illustrations,
selected on the basis of their common characteristics as historic
districts of interest to tourists which are threatened in distinct
ways. The nations are South East Asia neighbours with contrasting
profiles which render the locations interesting contexts for
discussion about offidal attitudes towards and action on heritage
conservation and underlying dynamics. The region is an appropriate
choice for such an analysis because it is undergoing rapid changes
related to development, urbanisation and globalisation which are
putting aspects of heritage at risk while increasing awareness of
its value, not least as a visitor attraction. The paper opens with
a review of the central concepts of heritage and conservation which
also makes reference to the implications of development. Policy
matters are then explored before examination of the spedfic sites,
highlighting the constraints and opportunities inherent in urban
heritage conservation. A final section derives some conclusions and
reflects on the role of heritage in modernising South East Asian
countries and dties and the challenges attendant on ensuring proper
stewardship for the benefit of both residents and tourists.
Findings are drawn from secondary data in the public domain and the
methodological limitations of the approach are acknowledged, but it
is believed that sufficient and suitable information was gathered
for the purpose of the exercise.
Heritage, Conservation and Urban Development Heritage is a
complex notion based upon historical
events and experiences as well as artefacts, but meanings and
understanding are shaped by contemporary circumstances and thoughts
about the future alongside personal and group perspectives (Graham
et al. 2000; Nuryanti 1996). It can be conceived of at multiple
levels from a single person or family through to nation and may
transcend national borders, constantly evolving and being added to
and taking assorted tangible and intangible forms. State
institutions regularly define and display formal interpretations of
heritage, but it is additionally an outcome of informal processes
and resides in individual and collective memories. One physical
manifestation is buildings and other structures from former eras
which still exist and may be conserved. There are some ambiguities
about terminology, but conservation implies a degree of
intervention and perhaps modification to ensure a building's
survival and safeguarding. Writing about the work of the National
Trust which is a key agency in the UK, Lithgow and Thackray (2009:
16) describe 'careful management of change. It is about revealing
and sharing the significance of places and ensuring that their
spedal qualities are protected, enhanced, enjoyed and understood by
present and future generations'. Conserved heritage can perform
useful sodal and cultural functions by inculcating national and
civic pride and feelings of connection (de la Torre 2002), helping
to bind a people together and employed as a nation-building tool
(Carter 1997). Money can also be made from heritage (Rypkema 2008)
and there is scope for adaptive reuse
JOAN C. HENDERSON is Associate Professor at the Nanyang Business
School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenues,
Singapore 639798. e-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2012 Tourism Recreation Research
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
whereby redundant buildings are transformed into commercial
space (Langston et al. 2008). Heritage's development and marketing
as a visitor attraction further demonstrates a capacity to earn
income directly and indirectly (Timothy and Nyaupane 2009).
Positive impacts of conservation are evident in urban
environments such as capital cities which commonly house
concentrations of tangible heritage. Older buildings and areas help
to explain a place's history and facets of the character of its
population and are a welcome indigenous counterpoint to ubiquitous
internationalised and homogenised cityscapes. City livability is
thereby improved which yields financial gains of revenue generation
and increased competitiveness (Ebbe 2009). Heritage projects can be
at the heart of urban rejuvenation and regeneration initiatives
(Orbasli 2008) and feature in destination branding and promotion in
ways indicative of their actual and prospective appeal to tourists
and investors (Kong 2007). Cultural tourism as a whole contributes
to urban economies (Bellini et al. 2007) and has the potential to
be a sustainable development tool by helping to make dties more
attractive destinations in which to stay, work, visit and invest
(Hutton 2004). Indeed, the government of Hong Kong describes
conservation as essential in light of the heightened expectations
of society at home and overseas (Government of Hong Kong 2007).
At the same time, exploitation of heritage is not without its
critics and questions of interpretation and presentation can be
controversial; for example, in multicultural sodeties where ethnic
cultures and loyalties must be reconciled with those of the
community at large (Perera 1995). Former colonies, too, confront
dilemmas of how to deal with the legacy of oppression and
occupation (Henderson 2002; Peleggi 2005), sometimes choosing
complete destruction (Western 1985). Heritage can thereby be a
contentious arena (Harrison 2009) in which decisions are taken
about conservation and current usage against a background of rival
and possibly conflicting accounts (Tunbridge 1984; Tunbridge and
Ashworth 1996). Political abuse may occur when formally sanctioned
narratives of history and identity are articulated through heritage
with the objective of reinforcing the authority of ruling elites,
some of dubious legitimacy (Philp and Mercer 1999). The tourism
industry has also been censured for the demands it makes on
cultural heritage and resultant erosion of authenticity and
over-commerdalisation (Salazar 2010).
The above reservations suggest the formidable obstacles to
conservation of a sort and standard which satisfies the numerous
stakeholders (Ghafar Ahmad 2006). Endeavours are frequently impeded
by the pace and extent
48
of development as observed in several East Asian countries which
have seen unprecedented economic growth in the past decade (Gill
and Kharas 2007). Cities across much of the region have expanded
(Page 2001; Rimmer and Dick 2009), many aspiring to be
international business and financial hubs, in a demonstration of
globalisation (Goh and Yeah 2003). Urbanisation has often been
accompanied by serious sodal and environmental problems (ADB 2008),
but striking futuristic landscapes have been created comprised of
towering skyscrapers which are hailed as symbols of progress. Older
buildings and neighbourhoods and the traditional trades and ways of
life conducted there are perceived as representative of a backward
past by certain offidals eager to present a modem face to the world
(te Lintelo 2009). Heritage could be judged an unproductive use of
scarce dty land G ones and Shaw 2006) and, even if laws affording
protection exist, enforcement may be lax (Indrianto 2008;
Martokusomo 2002). Neglect is another hazard, perhaps caused by
insuffident resources and expertise (Steinberg 2008), while too
much interference and inappropriate treatment may be equally
harmful (Winter 2009). Conflicts between development and
conservation are thus apparent and the dynamics and difficulties of
the relationship between the two are illustrated by circumstances
in Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines which are now
considered.
Heritage Conservation Policies in Three Countries
Policy Backgrozmds Historical, political, soda-cultural and
economic forces
interact to establish heritage assets and official attitudes
towards them, alongside the framework within which polides on
conservation are made. Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines are
relatively young nations with a modem history of colonisation; the
first two gained full independence from Britain in 1957 and 1965
respectively while the Philippines was ruled by Spain and the USA
before becoming an independent republic in 1946. All three were
occupied by the Japanese during the Second World War. Nation
building has therefore been a government task of some urgency,
especially in Singapore and Malaysia where radal mixes have led to
occasional tensions between majority and minority groups and a risk
of fragmentation. Ethnic Chinese account for 75% of Singapore's
population of over four million, the remainder made up primarily of
Malays and Indians (Singapore Statistics 2009); the same three
groups reside in Malaysia, but Malay Muslims and indigenous peoples
constitute over 60% of the population of 28.3 million (Department
of Statistics 2011). Heritage rna y serve to assist in unifying a
disparate populace, but it can be divisive as a marker of ethnicity
if the story of one group is privileged over others.
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
Malaysia and Singapore share a political history of continuity,
the former governed by a coalition headed by the Malay Muslim UMNO
party and the latter by the People's Action Party (PAP) since
independence. Both have, however, confronted a more assertive
opposition in recent years linked to the Islamicisation of politics
in the case of Malaysia. In contrast, the Philippines has been
characterised by political instability. Regular changes in
government, military coups and an Islamic separatist movement in
the south have generated insecurity and impeded development. The
Philippines was placed 97 out of 169 in the United Nations Human
Development Index and there are correspondingly high levels of
poverty amongst a population of 88.6 million (Human
DevelopmentNetwork2009; ADB2005). Malaysia was ranked 57 and
Singapore, one of the wealthiest Asian countries, occupied 27th
position in the same index (UNDP 2011). Resources available to
governments and the ability to engage in long-term planning have
repercussions for most policy fields, including heritage
conservation.
Cultural heritage is promoted to tourists by all the Destination
Marketing Organisations and tourism is an economic activity of
importance in the three countries and their capital cities. The
industry is deemed a crudal driver of growth in Malaysia (PMDU
2011), which recorded 24 .7 million arrivals in 2011 (Tourism
Malaysia 2012), and central to economic planning and development in
Singapore, where visitors reached 13.2 million that year (STB
2012). The Philippines government too has adopted tourism as a tool
in economic growth and poverty reduction strategies (Turingan
2006). However, the total of 3.9 million visitors in 2011
(Department of Tourism 2012) is disappointing and indicative of
potential likely to continue unrealised until formal travel
warnings issued in response to safety and security fears (FCO 2011)
have been revoked. Domestic tourism is, nevertheless, high in the
Philippines as well as Malaysia, unlike Singapore, where a land
area of approximately 693 square kilometres inhibits demand.
Increased attention is being devoted by the region's tourism
authorities to events and modem amenities, exemplified in Singapore
by large-scale retail malls and integrated resort complexes with
casinos. The shift in the city state's positioning is an effort at
reinvention in order to remain relevant and meet the needs of Asian
travellers who are enthusiastic about such entertainments and
rising in prominence. Despite the showcasing of new style
attractions, there is still an appredation of the part played by
heritage in attracting tourists and enhancing the visitor
experience which informs conservation policy.
A National Perspective The economic and soda-cultural roles of
heritage are
officially recognised in Malaysia, Singapore and the
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
Philippines, where governments have stated their commitment to
conservation. The Ministry of Information, Communication and
Culture has responsibility for the subject in Malaysia and a
National Heritage Act came into effect in 2006 to 'provide for the
conservation and preservation of National Heritage' encompassing
'tangible and intangible cultural heritage' (Ministry of
Information, Communication and Culture 2011). The Economic Planning
Unit has an interest as the author of the Ninth Malaysia Plan
(Economic Planning Unit 2006), which refers to the necessity of
preserving and restoring historic sites, buildings and artefacts.
National identity and events on the journey to nationhood are
thereby celebrated and the stock of visitor attractions is
enlarged. These ideas are echoed in the Tenth Plan, running from
2011 until2015, which also seeks to foster vibrant liveable cities
(Economic Planning Unit 2010). Heritage protection is one of the
guiding principles of the extant National Physical Plan produced by
the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning which again is
linked to 'soda-cultural heritage tourism' opportunities (FDTCPM
2005: 4.16). Conservation, together with development, is amongst
the objectives of the structure, local and special area plans
devised and executed in accordance with the National Urban Policy
(Taib and Ho 2008). The designation of Melaka and George Town,
historic cities of the Straits of Malacca, as a World Heritage Site
in 2008 was welcomed as a major step forward. However, warnings by
UNESCO offidals and others that construction in the core and buffer
zones of the sites could jeopardise the accolade (iGeorge Town
Penang 2008) hint at the gaps between the rhetoric and realities of
conservation policy.
In Singapore, the task of fostering' nationhood, identity and
creativity through heritage and cultural development' (NHB 2008: 3)
rests with the National Heritage Board (NHB) which reports to the
Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA). The NHB
works with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) under the
Ministry of National Development, the remit of which has broadened
beyond development to include conservation. Physical planning is
guided by the long-term Concept Plan which is implemented through a
series of Master Plans. The plan, originally firmly
economically-oriented, now incorporates quality of life goals
embradng heritage (URA 2008), which is depicted as an instrument
for expressing and reinforcing an overarching Singaporean identity,
drawing people closer together and tying them to the country
(Government of Singapore 2011). The URA selects buildings and areas
worthy of protection, issues guidelines and enforces regulations.
Officials assert that conserving built heritage is integral to its
work (URA 2011) and compatible with the priority of maximising the
commerdal utilisation
49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
of scarce land, advocating adaptive re-use 'driven by the
market' (Teh 2006). Nevertheless, the approach has prompted
complaints as has the overall system of top-down planning (Waller
2001) which tends to over-ride public opinion and is prepared to
sacrifice built heritage.
There have been advances in the Philippines, demonstrated by the
2009 National Cultural Heritage Act intended to 'protect, preserve,
conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage' and reflective
of endeavours by the state to 'create a balanced atmosphere where
the historic past co-exists in harmony with modem sodety' (Heritage
Conservation Society 2009). Implementation has been delayed, partly
because of the law's complexity, and the leader of the formal
National Historical Commission's Preservation Division is quoted as
saying that the 'conservation movement is losing the struggle most
of the time' (Mcindoe 2011). Impediments to overcome are a' general
lack of appredation, political apathy and disinterest, and an
absence of visionary planning and imagination, which result in
decade-long neglect and decay' (Akpedonu 2011). Opportunities and
constraints are disclosed by the UNESCO cultural World Heritage
Sites of the Spanish built baroque churches, historic town of Vigan
and 2,000-year-old Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras. The
authorities have sometimes struggled to meet the obligations
attendant on the award and the rice terraces are on theW orld
Heritage in Danger listing due to their deterioration (UNESCO
2011), but the Vigan City Heritage Conservation Programme has been
lauded as an example of good practice (Akpendonu 2011; UNHabitat
2008).
A Capital City Perspective In addition to national agencies,
dvic authorities are
crudal actors in the theatre of urban heritage conservation
except in the dty state of Singapore where the two levels of
government coincide. Kuala Lumpur, an urban agglomeration of around
7.2 million inhabitants, is a federal territory while the capital
of Kuala Lumpur has a population of about 1.4 million and is
governed by a dty council. The council has a vision of a 'world
class city' which 'conserves the best of its environmental,
architectural and cultural heritage and offers a rich blend of both
the modem and the traditional' (Kuala Lumpur City Hall2011a), ideas
shared by the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020 (Kuala Lumpur City
Hall2011 b). The city's modem personality is embodied in Kuala
Lumpur City Centre (KLCC), a zone of costly high-rise structures
dominated by the Petronas Twin Towers which was once the world's
tallest tower. KLCC is deliberately separated from the historic
centre and symbolises Malaysia's advance towards full development
status, which, it is hoped, will be attained by 2020.
50
Manila is one of the fastest growing dties in South East Asia
and home to around 11.5 million, qualifying it for the label of
mega-dty which is applied to those with populations in excess of
ten million. Metro Manila, sometimes referred to as a National
Capital Region, was declared a special development and
administrative region in 1995 when the Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority (MMDA) was set up with planning, monitoring
and coordinating duties. It brings together 17 cities and
munidpalities whose mayors sit on the Metropolitan Manila Council
which is the Development Authority's policy and decision-making
arm. Barangays are the lowest government tier and deal with
districts or neighbourhoods. Administrative arrangements and
responsibilities are thus fragmented (ADB 2008; Jung 2010) and
policy statements about heritage appear rare. However, the City of
Manila's mayor is reported to have revived and added the heritage
component to the Manila Historical and Heritage Commission in line
with his 'historical and cultural awakening programme' of events
and activities (City of Manila 2011).
There is thus evidence of formal protestations of support for
conservation nationally and sub-nationally in Malaysia, Singapore
and the Philippines. However, these do not conceal the fact that
much built heritage has been lost in the two capitals and Singapore
due to urbanisation and inadequate protection. The future of that
which remains is uncertain and the effect of crucial factors such
as development imperatives, commerdalisation pressures,
availability of funding, political will and racial and political
sensitivities as well as public and media interest are further
revealed in the cases of the spedfic sites which are described
below.
Kampung Baru in Kuala Lumpur The expansion of Kuala Lumpur's
population in the
late 19th century led to fears amongst the colonial regime about
the loss of agricultural land and the reserving of space to be
farmed by local Malays. About 90 hectares were set aside for this
purpose and named Kampung Baru or New Village in 1899 (Ar 2009).
The number of recognised holdings had increased from 12 in 1900 to
over 4,000 by 2011 due to Islamic practice whereby land is split
into smaller plots upon the death of the owner. The population was
2,600 in 1928 and is currently estimated to be between 15,000 and
30,000 (The Star 2010a). Kampung Baru lies within a federal
political constituency which has been a stronghold of UMNO, yet it
fell to the opposition Party Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) in 2008 (The
Malaysian Insider 2008). PAS proclaims itself the guardian of Islam
and sought to tum the country into a theocracy before moderating
this stance. While there has been some new construction, including
of apartments, much
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
of the an:hitecture is of a vernacular type comprising wooden
houses built on stilts. The village has been described as 'one of
the last remaining neighbourhoods in the dty with distinctive Malay
traditional houses and way of life' (The Star 2010b ). It is seen
as a testimony to the strength of Malay culture and its ability to
withstand the forces of modernisation which have transformed
aspects of life in Malaysia. There are several small, family-run,
food and beverage outlets located there and the atmosphere is such
that it is frequented by Malaysian visitors and warrants mention in
tourist guides (Lonely Planet 2011).
These distinctive characteristics have rendered Kampung Baru
anachronistic in the eyes of some, at odds with a modernising and
pragmatic agenda, and there have been assorted plans to develop the
site. The most recent proposals date from 2010 and originated in
the more comprehensive KLCP 2020 (Kuala Lumpur City Hall2008),
which has still to be promulgated, reportedly to allow for further
discussion and public feedback. It calls for the forming of a
Development Corporation which will coordinate, supervise and act as
a mediator amongst the developers, landowners and shareholders. The
future of Kampung Baru is depicted as one of a tourist and cultural
centre of world-class standing as well as a place in which to do
business and live. There are promises that its special qualities
will not be lost despite upgrading and it will remain a home to
existing residents who will be given a voice in decisions (The
Malay Mail2011). Inhabitant reaction was mixed, one villager
initiating a Face book campaign to save the settlement (The
Malaysian Insider 2011). Particular points of contention are the
lifting of the ban on non-Malay land ownership and the price
offered. Officials and proponents of the idea argue that allowing
access to non-Malays is critical in ensuring that development
matches that of the adjacent area. However, opponents speak about
the dilution of the Malay cultural heritage represented by Kampung
Baru and opening the doors to ventures and entertainments contrary
to Islam; for example, alcoholic consumption (The Malay Mail2010).
The city government has the option of compulsory purchase of the
land, but there is reluctance to incur the hostility of Malay
voters in Kampung Baru and beyond which such a move would likely
provoke and hence the seeming stalemate.
Intramuros in Manila The Spanish colonisers chose Manila as the
capital of
the Philippines in 1571 and constructed a fortified walled
compound, containing the military headquarters of Fort Santiago, to
house their administration. The complex was named
Intramuros,literally translated as 'within the walls', and is now
also called the Walled City. It occupies 64 hectares
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
of land in the heart of the city and is surrounded by 4.2
kilometres of walls. Intramuros served as the seat of the American
government and almost 90% was left in ruins following fierce
fighting there in 1945. In 1951, Intramuros was designated a
historical monument and Fort Santiago a national shrine and the
area was classed a commerdal, residential and educational district
five years later (Manila Bulletin 2011). Little progress was made
regarding conservation until the setting up of an Intramuros
Restoration Committee (IRC) in 1966 under the National Historical
Commission which led to work on parts of the foundation, walls and
gates. The IRC was abolished after the imposition of martial law in
1972, but a Presidential decree in 1978 offered some protection to
the city. The Intramuros Administration (lA) was established in
1979 and placed under the Department of Tourism when martial law
ended in 1986. The tourism potential of the site had long been
appredated and the lA sought to encourage the opening of antique
and craft shops and traditional restaurants by leasing out
renovated heritage buildings. The lA is still the lead agency and
the Chairman is a senior offidal in the Department of Tourism.
Representatives of the tourism industry sit on the Board of
Administrators and there is a Tourism, Marketing and Promotions
Division. In addition to these organisations, there are five
barangays operating in Intramuros. There were some tourism
programmes before the 1992 Urban Development Plan which deals with
matters of protection and development. The plan talks of a living
museum, but details about how this might be achieved are scanty
(Turalba 2008).
While there have been offidal and private endeavours at
rehabilitation, Intramuros is very dilapidated and the Global
Heritage Fund dtes it and Fort Santiago as threatened by
development and poor management (Global Heritage Fund 2010).
Restoration work is hampered by its seemingly ad hoc nature and the
lack of funds. Ongoing projects include restoring an historic wall,
tom down in the 1900s, which is intended to house cafes and shops
and is funded by a Japanese grant. The government is spending US$
3.5 million to turn a ruined church into a museum of religious
artefacts and craftsmen trained under a Spanish government grant
are restoring original construction materials at the fort. An
ambitious revitalisation initiative was launched in mid-2011 and
envisages rehabilitated and reconstructed buildings, amongst them a
mall for upmarket restaurants and retailers. Success is reliant on
multi-million dollar private investment by real estate companies
and there are doubts about whether this will be forthcoming
(Macaraig 2011). Other impediments are the fact that older
buildings are in poor repair and new government offices,
universities and businesses have been erected. The district is
overcrowded, congested, and noisy,
51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
with severe waste disposal problems Gung 2010). It is home to an
estimated 3000 squatter families living in shanties whose begging
and graffiti have been criticised by offidals for marring the
visitor experience. Nevertheless, Intramuros is a major attraction
of Manila and the walls and fortifications perform a tourism
function. There are assorted museums, monuments and ruins and San
Augustin Church is one of the four baroque churches recognised by
UNESCO. Cafes and restaurants range from fast food outlets to fine
dining establishments and there is a choice of accommodation.
Chinatown in Singapore Singapore was claimed as a trading post
for the British
East India Company by Stamford Raffles in 1819. Returning in
1822, Raffles was reportedly dismayed by its disorderly state and
formed a town committee to oversee growth. Lt Jackson's town plan
was published in 1828 and allocated areas for different ethnic
groups as well as for commerce and administration. The Chinese
settlement was to be south of the river and expanded rapidly
thereafter, characterised by a shophouse style of architecture in
which the ground floor was given over to business and the upper
storeys to residence. Overpopulation and unhygienic living
conditions soon prevailed and persisted, leading the new government
to implement a series of public housing and urban redevelopment
programmes in the 1960s. Alterations prompted calls for the
safeguarding of the physical fabric and ambience of the ethnic
enclave and four sub-districts were designated as a conservation
area by the URA in 1989. The Chinatown Historic District covers 23
hectares and 1,200 structures, about 53% of which are privately
owned (Low and Wong 1997). The accompanying conservation plan aims
to retain and restore historically and architecturally important
buildings and improve the environment through public and private
sector cooperation where possible. Certain restrictions seek to
protect the architectural integrity of structures, but adaptive
reuse is permitted (URA 1995).
As a consequence of its special status, shophouses were restored
and new businesses and private tenants moved in while some
landscaping and pedestrian schemes were undertaken. Chinatown was
identified as an 'opportunity area' in tourism strategies (STPB
1995) and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) announced in 1998 that
it had allocated S$ 97.5 (US$ 78.1) million for redevelopment. The
overall goal was for visitors to stay longer and spend more. Key
elements were division into three zones, themed streets and
gardens, a village theatre and better access. The last included
construction of a light railway station as part of the network's
enlargement. Reactions were mixed and there were complaints about
excessive theming, artificiality, heavy handed interference and
insufficient consultation with
52
locals. Adverse comments led to dialogue between the STB and
residents (Henderson 2000) and some minor modifications ensued.
Most of the measures were introduced, together with others such as
the opening of a heritage centre, and the project is now completed.
Chinatown remains one of the most visited attractions in Singapore
for overseas tourists with its contemporary shops, cafes and
entertainments combined with traditional businesses of medical
halls, teahouses and markets (Chinatown Business Association 2011).
Nevertheless, some visitors question aspects of authenticity and
the absence of rent controls means that long standing small traders
face regular and substantial increases in costs (Ng et al. 2011).
The Historic District of Chinatown is now one of the 'tourism
predncts' overseen by a dedicated STB Unit which desires that the
predncts are 'positively cultivated' in accordance with
'Singapore's appeal as a rich multi-cultural destination',
emphasising that its role is to assist agencies such as the Chinese
Business Association in their task of place management' (STB
2011).
Discussion and Conclusion Malaysia, Singapore and the
Philippines thus share
certain characteristics related to geographic region, colonial
past and relatively short histories as independent nations as well
as sodeties of mixed ethnidty and firmly entrenched ruling parties
whose dominance is now being questioned in the cases of the first
two. There is a common dedication to economic growth, to which
tourism is agreed to make a contribution, and heritage features in
the marketing of all the destinations. Marked contrasts exist in
terms of prosperity, system of government, radal balance and
offidal understanding of identity. Singapore is distinguished by
its small size, wealth, extent of government planning and control,
search for a sense of nationhood, and stability and security while
the Philippines is a scattered archipelago and poor country with
deficiencies in governance and an inclination to instability.
Positioned somewhere between the two economically, Malaysia is
undergoing development led by a modernising government which cannot
afford to ignore more conservative elements in the country. These
general drcumstances have been shown to have implications for the
meanings and significance attached to heritage, determining
official stances and action on conservation. Heritage is widely
regarded at central and metropolitan levels as a form of economic
and soda-cultural capital to be expended in pursuit of assorted
goals. However, financial and administrative constraints restrict
what can be achieved in the Philippines and Manila in ways
illustrated by Intramuros. These limitations operate to a much
lesser extent in Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur, but cannot be
discounted and there is frequently divergence between what is
offidally said and done.
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
The political dimension must also be taken into account and
heritage can be both a vote winner and loser, sometimes becoming an
issue of contention as seen in Kampung Baru. The politicisation of
heritage may be a positive force in keeping sites from disruptive
and destructive development, although this view is contradicted
when politics exercises an undue and harmful influence on the
direction and speed of change. A paucity of government finance
resulting in benign neglect might also be considered to have
protective effects, yet again there is a counter-argument that any
such benefits are likely to be offset by the shortage of money for
spending on basic maintenance and restoration. In contrast,
authorities in Singapore have proved able and willing to invest
heavily in selected heritage conservation efforts, often inspired
by nation building objectives. There are risks though of excessive
interference leading to overly organised heritage environments
lacking in spontaneity, which are prone to commercialisation and
commodification, complaints which have been made about Singapore's
Chinatown. Economic imperatives also underlie plans for Kampung
Baru and Intramuros and tend to dominate official agendas in which
growth and maximising the commercial potential of land regularly
assumes priority over heritage and its conservation.
Obstacles to the devising and execution of effective heritage
conservation policy in the South East Asian countries and cities
under review emerge as varied, numerous and formidable.
Nevertheless, there is official
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
acceptance of the obligation to conserve and awareness of the
advantages of doing so based on prospective returns. Conserved
structures and sites can be windows onto history which is intrinsic
to the identity of the place and its inhabitants, strengthening
social and cultural ties. Manifestations of heritage are a key
component of tourist destination image, adding diversity and
novelty to the stock of attractions and recreational settings.
There are also political rewards to be gained from championing
heritage and harnessing it to hegemonic agendas. At the same time,
South East Asian governments are intent on the continued economic
advances which their future is believed to depend upon and are
prepared to sacrifice built heritage should it be perceived as
impeding progress. The task confronting authorities is one element
of the broader challenge pertaining to sustainable development and
requires striking an appropriate balance between modernisation and
conservation, especially within an urban context. Tourism has a
part to play in securing such an accommodation because visitor
appeal helps to justify conservation, yet the risks of heritage
becoming a product for tourist consumption must also be
acknowledged and guarded against. The topic is, therefore, a rich
field for further research and themes meriting study extend beyond
government. Attitudes towards and engagement with heritage by
citizens and tourists in particular justify attention in order to
permit the drawing of a more complete picture of the actual and
desired place of conserved heritage in contemporary South East
Asia.
References ADB (2005). Philippines Assessment Report: Poverty.
Manila. Asian Development Bank. ADB (2008). Managing Asian Cities:
Sustainable and Inclusive Urban Solutions. Manila. Asian
Development Bank. AKPEDONU, E. (2011). Lessons from Vigan: A
Comparative Analysis of Successful Urban Heritage Rehabilitation.
Paper presented at Association
of Southeast Asian Studies in the United Kingdom, Cambridge,
9-11 September. AR, A.N.A. (2009). Legacies of An Urban Village:
Kampung Barn History, Architectural Features and Heritage. Paper
presented at PAM CPD
Seminar 2009, Kuala Lumpur, 8 August. BELLINI, E., DEL CORPO,
B., GASPARINO, U. and MALIZIA, W. (2007). Impact of Cultural
Tourism upon Urban Economies: An Econometric
Exercise. Working Paper 144. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
CARTER, C. (1997). The Dead, Place/Space and Social Activism:
Constructing the Nationscape in Historic Melaka. Environment and
Planning D:
Society and Space 15: 555-586. CHINATOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
(2011). Celebrating the Old and the New. http:/ /www.chinatown.sg/
- Accessed on 22 October 2011. CITY OF MANILA (2011). Home. http:/
/www.manila.gov.ph/mhhc.htm - Accessed on 25 October 2011. DE LA
TORRE, M. (2002). Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage:
Research Report. Los Angeles. The Getty Conservation Institute.
DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS (2011). Key Statistics.
www.statistics.gov.my- Accessed on 21 October 2011. DEPARTMENT OF
TOURISM (2012). Philippine Tourism Breaks Record on Foreign Tourist
Arrivals. Media Release (8 February). EBBE, K. (2009).
Infrastructure and Heritage Conservation: Opportunities for Urban
Revitalisation and Economic Development. Directions in Urban
Development Note, World Bank Urban Development Unit. Available
at http:/ /www.wburbanstrategy.org/urbanstrategy/node/26- Accessed
on 25 October 2011.
ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan. Kuala
Lumpur. Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Office. ECONOMIC
PLANNING UNIT (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan. Putrajaya. Economic
Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department. FCO (2011). Travel
Advice by Country: Philippines. http:/
/www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas- Accessed on 26
October 2011. FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
(FDTCPM) (2005). National Physical Plan. Kuala Lumpur. FDTCPM.
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
GHAFAR AHMAD, A. (2006). Cultural Heritage of Southeast Asia:
Preservation for World Recognition. Journal of Malaysian Tawn Plan
3(1): 52-62.
GILL, I. and KHARAS, H. (2007). An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas
for Economic Grawth. Washington. The World Bank. GLOBAL HERITAGE
FUND (2010). Global Heritage in Peril: Sites on the Verge. http:/
/globalheritagefund.org- Accessed on 20 October 2011. GOH, R. and
YEOH, B. (Eds) (2003). Theorising the Southeast Asian City as Text:
Urban Landscapes, Cultural Documents and Interpretative
Experiences.
New Jersey. World Scientific Books. GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG
(2007). Infrastructure Development and Heritage Conservation.
Government of Hong Kong Yearbook: 211-231. GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE
(2011). Singapore Holds Heritage Town Award Presentation Ceremony.
The Government Monitor (21 February). GRAHAM, B., ASHWORTH, G.J.
and TUNBRIDGE, J.E. (2000). A Geography of Heritage: Pawer, Culture
and Economy. London. Arnold. HARRISON, R. (Ed) (2009).
Understanding the Politics of Heritage. Manchester. Manchester
University Press. HENDERSON, J.C. (2000). Attracting Tourists to
Singapore's Chinatown: A Case Study in Conservation and Promotion.
Tourism Management 21:
525-534. HENDERSON, J.C. (2002). Built Heritage and Colonial
Cities. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1): 254-257. HERITAGE
CONSERVATION SOCIETY (2009). National Cultural Heritage Act of
2009. http:/ /www.heritage.org/ph/news.php?id=39- Accessed
on 13 October 2011. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT NETWORK (2009). Philippine
Human Development Report 2008/2009. http:/ /hdn.org.ph -Accessed on
10 August
2009. HUTTON, T.A. (2004). Service Industries, Globalisation and
Urban Restructuring within the Asia-Pacific: New Development
Trajectories and
Planning Responses. Progress in Planning 61: 1-74. IDRIANTO, A.
(2008). Interpreting the Past: Creating the Surabaya Heritage
Trail, Indonesia. In Cochrane, J. (Ed) Asian Tourism: Grawth and
Change.
Oxford. Elsevier: 357-368. !GEORGE TOWN PENANG (2008).
Engelhardt Sparks a Lively and Timely Debate. http:/
/www.igeorgetopwnpewnang.com/news- Accessed on
25 October 2011. JONES, R. and SHAW, B.J. (2006). Palimpsets of
Progress: Erasing the Past and Rewriting the Future in Developing
Societies: Case Studies of
Singapore and Jakarta. International Journal of Heritage Studies
12(2): 122-138. JUNG, T. (2010). Tourism in Metropolitan Manila -
Philippines: An Analysis. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University
of Cologne. KONG, L. (2007). Cultural Icons and Urban Development
in Asia: Economic Imperative, National Identity and Global City
Status. Political
Geography 26: 383-404. KUALA LUMPUR CITY HALL (2008). Kuala
Lumpur 2020 City Plan. http:/ /klcityplan2020.dbkl.gov.my/ eis/ -
Accessed on 2 July 2011. KUALA LUMPUR CITY HALL (2011a). Department
Profile. http:/ /www.dbkl.gov.my- Accessed on 18 October 2011.
KUALA LUMPUR CITY HALL (2011b). Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan. http:/
/www.dbkl.gov.my- Accessed on 18 October 2011. LANGSTON, C., WONG,
F., HUI, E. and SHEN, L.Y. (2008). Strategic Assessment of Building
Adaptive Reuse Opportunities in Hong Kong.
Building and Environment 43: 1709-1718. LITHGOW, K. and
THACKRAY, D. (2009). The National Trust's Approach to Conservation.
Conservation Bulletin 60: 16-19. LONELY PLANET (2011). #3 of 428
Things to do in Kuala Lumpur. http:/
/www.lonelyplanet.com/malaysia/kuala-lumpur/restaurants/
hawker/kampung-baru - Accessed on 7 November 2011. LOW, S.P. and
WONG, S. (1997). Conservation and the Chinatown Pilot Project in
Singapore. Property Management 15(2): 117-125. MANILA BULLETIN
(2011). Intramuros Administration 32nd Anniversary. Manila
Bulletin. http:/ /www.mb.com- Accessed 18 October 2011. MACARAIG,
M. (2011). Intramuros to Rise Again, Government Vows. Interaksyon,
10 June. http:/ /interaksyon.com/article/5396- Accessed on
18 October 2011. MARTOKUSUMO, I.W. (2002). Urban Heritage
Conservation in Indonesia: Experiences from the Inner-City of
Bandung and Jakarta Kota. In Nas,
P. (Ed) The Indonesian Tawn Revisted. Munster and Singapore. LIT
Verlag-Institut of Asian Studies: 374-389. MciNDOE, A. (2011).
Fight to Retain Heritage Takes Root in Manila. The Straits Times (3
September): C10. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE
(2011). National Heritage Act 2005. http:/ /www.kpkk.gov.my-
Accessed
on 18 October 2011. NG, S.K., POH, V. and ZHANG, F. (2011).
Ethnic Tourism in Singapore. Unpublished undergraduate
dissertation. Nanyang Business School,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. NHB (2008).
Renaissance City Plan III: Heritage Development Plan. Singapore.
National Heritage Board. NURYANTI, W. (1996). Heritage and
Post-Modem Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23(2): 249-260.
ORBASLI, A. (2008). Architectural Conservation. Oxford. Blackwell
Science. PAGE, S. (2001). Gateways, Hubs and Transport
Interconnections in Southeast Asia: Implications for Tourism
Development in the Twenty First
Century. In Teo, P., Chang, T.C. and Ho, K.C. (Eds)
Interconnected Worlds: Tourism in Southeast Asia. Oxford and New
York. Pergamon: 84-102. PELEGGI, M. (2005). Consuming Colonial
Heritage: The Monumentalism of Historic Hotels in Urban South-East
Asia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 46(3):
255-265. PERERA, S. (Ed) (1995). Asian and Pacific Inscriptions:
Identities, Ethnicities, Nationalities. Victoria. Meridien. PHILP,
J. and MERCER, D. (1999). Commodification of Buddhism in
Contemporary Burma. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1): 21-59.
54 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
-
Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson
PMDU (2011). Economic Transformation Programme. http:/
/etp.pemandu.gov.my- Accessed on 18 October 2011. RIMMER, P.J. and
DICK, H.W. (Eds) (2009). The City in Southeast Asia: Patterns,
Processes and Policy. Honolulu. University of Hawaii Press.
RYPKEMA, D.D. (2008). Heritage Conservation and the Local Economy.
Global Urban Development 4(1): 1-8. SALAZAR, N. (2010). The
Glocalisation of Heritage through Tourism: Balancing
Standardisation and Differentiation. In Labadi, S. and Long, C.
(Eds) Heritage and Globalisation. New York. Routledge: 130-146.
SINGAPORE STATISTICS (2009). Yearbook of Statistics. Singapore.
Singapore Statistics. STB (2011). Singapore Tourism Board Annual
Report 2010/2011. Singapore. Singapore Tourism Board. STB (2012).
Visitor Arrivals. https:/ /app.stb.gov.sg/asp/touftou020l.asp-
Accessed on 21 February 2012. STPB (1995). Tourism 21: Vision of a
Tourism Capital. Singapore. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board.
STEINBERG, F. (2008). Revitalization of Historic Inner-City Areas
in Asia: The Potential for Urban Renewal in Ha Noi, Jakarta and
Manila. Manila. Asia
Development Bank. TAIB, M.S. and HO, C.S. (2008). Planning
System in Malaysia. Paper presented at Joint TUT-UTM Seminar of
Sustainable Development and
Governance organised by Toyohashi University of Technology, 26
June. TEH, L.Y. (2006). Built Heritage Conservation in Singapore: A
Public-Private Partnership. Paper presented at National Seminar on
the Preservation
of Urban Heritage in Cambodia, Phnom Penh. TE LINTELO, D.J.
(2009). The Spatial Politics of Food Hygiene: Regulating
Small-Scale Retail in Delhi. European Journal of Development
Research 21:
63-80. THE MALAY MAIL (2010). 'No' to Non-Malays in Kg Barn. The
Malay Mail (1 June). THE MALAY MAIL (2011). Schedule to Gazette
2020 Kuala Lumpur City Plan Postponed to July 2012. The Malay Mail
(4 October). THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER (2008). KL's Kampung Barn
Villagers Take Protest to Facebook. The Malaysian Insider (8
March). THE STAR (2010a). Origin of the Place. The Star (21
August). THE STAR (2010b). Redeveloping Kampung Barn. The Star (21
August). TIMOTHY, D.J. and NYAUPANE, G.P. (Eds) (2009). Cultural
Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World: A Regional
Perspective. London and New
York. Routledge. TOURISM MALAYSIA (2012). Malaysia Charts 24.7
Million Tourists in 2011. Media Release (10 February). TUNBRIDGE,
J. (1984). Whose Heritage to Conserve? Cross-Cultural Reflections
on Political Dominance and Urban Heritage Conservation.
Canadian Geographer 28(2): 171-180. TUNBRIDGE, J.E. and
ASHWORTH, G.J. (1996). Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the
Past as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester. John Wiley. TURALBA, M.
(2008). Appendix 3: Manila Case Study. In Steinberg, F. (Ed)
Revitalisation of Historic Inner-City Areas in Asia: The Potential
for Urban
Renewal in Ha Noi, Jakarta and Manila. Manila. Asia Development
Bank: 163-202. TURINGAN, P.S. (2006). Tourism as a Development
Strategy. Senate Economic Planning Office Policy Insights: 1-13.
UNDP (2011). Human Development Report 2010. New York. United
Nations Development Programme. UNESCO (2011). World Heritage List.
http:/ /whc.unesco.org/en/list/ -Accessed on 19 October 2011.
UNHABITAT (2008). Best Practices on Social Sustainability in
Historic Districts. Nairobi. United Nations Human Settlements
Programme. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (URA) (1995). Chinatawn
Historic District. Singapore. Urban Redevelopment Authority. URBAN
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (URA) (2008). Master Plan 2008. http:/
/www.ura.gov.sg/MP2008- Accessed on 25 March 2010. URBAN
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (URA) (2011). About Conservation. http:/
/www.ura.gov.sg/conservation.htm- Accessed on 13 June
2011. WALLER, E. (2001). Landscape Planning in Singapore.
Singapore. Singapore University Press. WESTERN, J. (1985). Undoing
the Colonial City? The Geographical Review 75: 335-357. WINTER, T.
(2009). Conserving Heritage in South East Asian Cities: Planning
for Continuity and Change. http:/ /www.getty.edu/conservation-
Accessed on 27 June, 2011.
Submitted: November 7, 2011 Accepted: December 15, 2011
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [N
US N
ation
al Un
iversi
ty of
Sing
apor
e] at
05:28
25 M
arch 2
015
