This article was downloaded by: [NUS National University of Singapore]

On: 25 March 2015, At: 05:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tourism Recreation Research

Publication 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 Philippines
Joan C. Henderson Associate Professor

Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenues, Singapore 639798. email:
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 the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary 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 indirectly
in 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 systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 37(1), 2012: 47-55

Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Cases from Malaysia,

Singapore and the Philippines

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

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

Heritage, Conservation and Urban Development

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 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: ahenderson@ntu.edu.sg

Copyright 2012 Tourism Recreation Research

Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

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 overcommerdalisation (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 Gones 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

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson

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

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

Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

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 highrise 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

Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

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 Facebook 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 nonMalays 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

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

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.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

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

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Henderson

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 counterargument 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

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

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): 5262.
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.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

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

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 05:28 25 March 2015

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/conservationAccessed on 27 June, 2011.

Submitted: November 7, 2011

Accepted: December 15, 2011

Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37, No. 1, 2012

55