USP Undergraduate Journal | 34

to this place so that Chinatown as a whole becomes Place Making, Policy more than just a collection of buildings in the same vicinity. An understanding of this process will o!er Making: Opportunities alternative perspectives beyond historical and cultural explanations of the signi"cance of Chinatown, and and Challenges in provide insights to how this signi"cance can be Planning Chinatown sustained. While Gupta focuses on the capabilities of objects and buildings to evoke feelings, especially through Wong Yi Fong prior experiences in that location, Wood (1997: 58) believes that place making “involves a continual process of shaping identity and expressing social rban planning has always required a relationships.” He argues that the sense of belonging multidisciplinary perspective, one that to a place does not solely arise from feelings towards Utakes into consideration the social, places, but also from feelings towards the people economic and political implications of policies. In within these places. #ese arguments situate place the case of ’s Chinatown, the process of making as a “stimulant-response” process, where policy making is made more challenging because the presence of certain “stimulants” can conjure of Chinatown’s complexity as compared with other particular responses; it is thus a matter of "nding districts of Singapore. Chinatown serves numerous the correct combination of “stimulants” in order to functions: as a historic cultural site for Chinese, achieve the desired feeling of community. I propose as the second most visited free-access site for that while Gupta and Wood have identi"ed the tourists after Orchard Road (STB 2008b), and as critical elements of place making, namely the physical entities and the social activities, the process itself is Representation Constituency. Consequently, there more interdependent and iterative. As illustrated in "gure 1, the relationship on the implementation of policies in Chinatown. between physical entities and social activities is an This is further complicated by the lack of a single interdependent one: physical entities determine and constrain the type of social activities that take holistic plans for Chinatown; instead, there are place because of the provision of infrastructure, multiple governmental agencies, each with some e.g., stage (entity) for performances (activity). Yet, jurisdiction over particular segments of Chinatown. simultaneously, activities also shape and in$uence At a recent brainstorming and planning session the physical entities of the location, e.g., the increase entitled “Boosting the Chinatown Experience,” in performances, whether it is because of festivals, the merits and faults of past policies, concerns and autonomous interest groups or governmental obstacles currently faced by stakeholders, and the encouragement, leads to the demand for the challenges and considerations of policy makers construction of stages. #ese elements, hence, are for future development were discussed. Jointly constantly in$uencing the development of each other. organized by the Singapore Tourism Board, Kreta Ayer-Kim Seng Citizens Consultative Committee #e physical entities such as iconic buildings like and the Chinatown Business Association, the the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple, Mandarin road varied scope of discussion seemingly adjures an signs and red street lantern decorations, together equally diverse strategy in policy making. However, with the social activities such as the congregation of a diverse strategy necessarily lacks cohesion if elderly playing chess, shopkeepers peddling wares and residents in their daily routines, create and contribute to the “feelings of belonging” to Chinatown. #is consolidate Chinatown through “place making” so intangible sense of attachment is the purpose of place as to better reduce problems of communication making. #is sense of community should not only and contestation. be felt by its members, i.e. residents and shopkeepers, but should also to an extent be identi"able by visitors Concept of Place Making to the area, who should be able to tell when they are within the spatial boundaries of Chinatown. Place making is the process of “how feelings of belonging to an imagined community bind identity However, this is not a unidirectional in$uence. #e to spatial location such that di!erences between sense of this Chinatown community created by the communities and places are created” (Gupta 1992: aforementioned elements will also in turn a!ect the 10). It is this process that imbues Chinatown with physical entities and social activities, e.g., the feeling meaning, inducing people to develop feelings speci"c that certain elements are acceptable while others Volume 4, Issue 1, Jan 2012 | 35

Figure 1. #e process of place making: the interaction between the elements of a location and their relationship with the sense of community, as in this case, Chinatown. are “transgressions” and “out of place.” Although it the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the is possible that these transgressing elements can be Singapore Tourism Board (STB), which are typically negotiated into and eventually accepted as part of uninvolved in other local residential communities. In the community over time, the critical point to note a!ecting the physical entities and the social activities here is the interdependency of the three elements of through policies, they therefore play an important place making: any change e!ected to any element part in the place making processes of Chinatown, can simultaneously bring about changes to the other and the resulting attachment that the community has elements. Hence, in crafting policies, the e!ect of for the spatial location. Before the discussion of the place making processes in “rippling beyond” the agencies’ place making processes, it is useful to "rst intended targets of the policies should be recognized. examine the objectives of these government agencies If there were no de"nitive area in which to evaluate and their vision for Chinatown. the place making processes, as in the case of Chinatown now, the e!ects of the policies might be Urban Redevelopment Authority overlooked, lost, or even negated. #e URA is Singapore’s national land-use planning The Role of the Government authority. In addition to being responsible for the management of land-use, it directs the conservation While place making processes can be solely of national monuments and historic areas. Chinatown initiated by the community in an organic fashion, is under the jurisdiction of the URA, which means Singapore’s Chinatown is in a uniquely complex that land-use in Chinatown is subject to URA’s situation because of the numerous functions it serve, zoning interpretation (URA 2008a). As a designated and the corresponding varied groups of stakeholders. historical conservation district by the URA, buildings #ere are speci"cally two major functions that in Chinatown are also subject to the conservation can be considered “national interests,’ in that they principles, which describe the degree of modi"cation have larger implications on the country beyond the allowable on these buildings, even if they are community itself: (1) a cultural historic site, and (2) privately owned. At the same time, there are speci"c a major tourist attraction. Hence, this warrants the monuments within Chinatown that are listed by overt involvement of the government agencies like URA as being under the Preservation of Monuments USP Undergraduate Journal | 36

Act, such as the !ian Hock Keng Temple at Telok STB, however, has based its demarcation of Ayer Street and Lai Chun Yuen !eatre at Trengganu Chinatown on the activities that are carried out, Street (URA 2008b). As such, it can be seen that the both historically and in the modern context. !e URA is generally more concerned with the physical three districts that it names are the Historic District, entities of Chinatown. the Greater Town and the Hilltown (see #g. 3). !e Historic District comprises of the area where the #rst Singapore Tourism Board Chinese immigrants settled, the Greater Town, or Dua Poh as it was known in the 1960s, is the area !e STB is Singapore’s economic development of commerce and trade, and Hilltown is the area of agency specialising in tourism, and is responsible more recent development, with the emphasis of green for the marketing of Singapore as a tourist spaces and rejuvenation through youth involvement destination. STB also handles the management of in urban planning. tourist attractions and the regulating of tourism businesses. As a result of the historical and cultural As such, the main signi#cant di"erence between elements of Chinatown, it has become a popular the two government agencies’ mapping of Chinatown tourist destination, attracting an estimated 35% of is URA’s exclusion of the area bounded by Upper the 10 million tourists in 2008 alone (STB 2008b). and Upper Pickering Street, and the area !is has thus led to the involvement of the STB in bounded by and Smith Street. !ese the planning and development of Chinatown. For areas are characterized by the lack of shophouses and example one policy implemented by the STB was generally consists of shopping complexes, residential the Chinatown Experience Guide Plan, which aims $ats and buildings recently constructed in the last to “recall, capture and express the spirit that infused twenty years. the Chinatown of old, and to transform Chinatown into a busy and vibrant district, a gathering place Methodology and cultural focal point for Singaporeans and visitors alike” (STB 2008a). In promoting festivals and events With the di"erences in zoning and mapping centred around these historical and cultural aspects strategies employed by both the URA and STB, of Chinatown, it is evident that STB is more invested it would be appropriate to examine Chinatown in the social activities governing the area. through the usage of critical geographic information systems (GIS). Nyerges (2009:506) describes GIS Di!erences in the Place Making of as “an integrative information technology that includes database management, spatial analysis, and Chinatown map display capabilities [used] to portray geospatial relationships in map form.” Using GIS tools, the As both URA and STB have di"erent planning spatiality of each agencies’ jurisdiction, i.e. the exact objectives and functions, it seems that the URA boundaries of di"erent zones within Chinatown is more concerned with the physical entities of and even the boundaries of Chinatown itself, can Chinatown while the STB is more involved with be mapped and compared visually. With these the social activities that take place. !is discrepancy boundaries, we can have an indication of the sites of in aims leads to di"erent place making processes place making processes and conversely, the areas that implemented by the di"erent organizations, and have been excluded or neglected in policies. in turn, the “place” that is being “made” by the government agencies di"ers. !is disparity is further At the same time, I will also be employing the highlighted upon the juxtaposition of the ways the techniques of participatory GIS, which Schuurman agencies mark the spatial boundaries of Chinatown. (2009: 366) describes as “a suite of methods and technologies that… [incorporates] multiple !e URA, in planning Chinatown, divides it into perspectives and a diversity of alternative information 4 districts, namely Kreta Ayer, Telok Ayer, Bukit forms.” In this particular research, the “multiple” Pasoh and Tanjong Pagar (see #g. 2). Because of the perspectives include not only those of the government nature of Chinatown as a historical conservation agencies, but also views of the public and their district, the boundary as marked by URA has a direct imagination of Chinatown. !is is done through impact on the management of buildings. Buildings a mapping exercise, where 91 participants are each within the district of Chinatown are monitored by given a map of the area that encompasses and includes the URA in terms of renovation, and are constrained Chinatown, regardless of URA or STB’s de#nition. to retain certain elements, such as the façade of Participants are then asked to mark the area they shophouses, despite their creative reusal and new feel constitutes Chinatown, followed by a series of functions. In line with the conservation of historical questions relating to their perception of the area. buildings, URA's demarcation of Chinatown is thus !is forms the primary data source of the public’s based on the need for building preservation. de#nition of Chinatown, which is then processed using GIS tools and overlaid with URA and STB’s Volume 4, Issue 1, Jan 2012 | 37 nition of Chinatown. For the purposes of this paper, it is only necessaryConservation Plan to note the boundaries of 4 districts. Source: the purposes of this paper, For 2. URA'a de ! nition of Chinatown. Figure (URA 2000). USP Undergraduate Journal | 38

Figure 3. STB’s demarcation of Chinatown. ! e colours re$ ect the “feeling” of each district. Green represents the natural scenery, red indicates bustle, and gold captures the pioneering spirit of the # rst immigrants. Source: Chinatown Experi- ence Guide Plan – A Business & Development Blueprint (STB 2008a). mapping of Chinatown so as to provide a basis for implemented. An interview with Mr. Edmund Chua, comparison. ! is cartographic portion, together the Assistant Chief Executive of the Destination with the survey results, constitutes the quantitative Experience Group from the STB was also conducted component of the study. ! rough this methodology, as part of this study. ! is interview serves to elucidate there will be, as Schuurman (2009: 366) puts it, government policies, provide elaboration on the “collaborative planning e" orts, supporting inclusive challenges and opportunities that the STB faces, public participation in decision-making processes.” and explain planning objectives and rationale behind GIS, in this case, becomes more than a tool of policies. analysis; it also empowers the public in policy- making by giving them a visible and substantiated GIS-based Findings representation on the maps. During the mapping exercise, participants were ! e qualitative component of this study is achieved asked to demarcate the areas that they felt constituted through interviews with survey participants to draw Chinatown on a general location map of the area (see more in-depth responses regarding the perception # g. 4). Based on the data collected, the buildings of Chinatown and the policies that have been which were deemed part of Chinatown (both by the

Figure 4. General location map of Chinatown Figure 5. Digitized map of Chinatown Volume 4, Issue 1, Jan 2012 | 39 public and the government agencies) were “digitised” mentioned that “Chinatown” is simply the area or made into areas capable of storing data in the around the Chinatown MRT Station. # is physical GIS software ArcGIS developed by ESRI (see ! g. 5). entity can be seen as having reinforced the place making processes in the area successfully, with the By collating the areas that were marked as Chinatown, two parcels adjacent to it garnering more than 60% a choropleth map is created. A choropleth map is recognition as Chinatown. Just north of New Bridge a thematic map in which the areas are di" erently Road however, without the “ripple” e" ect of the MRT coloured based on the value associated with each station, the parcels containing Pearl Centre, People’s area. In this case, this value indicates the number of Park Complex, # e Majestic and People’s Park Centre participants who selected the area as being part of exhibits signi! cantly less recognition, with only an Chinatown. average of about 30% of the participants indicating this stretch of buildings as being part of Chinatown To facilitate the mapping process and the analysis of the ! ndings, the map of the area is divided into # ere is a general trend where areas are less parcels (see ! g. 6). # ese parcels are based on the perceived as Chinatown as one shifts away from this smallest unit of recognition as observed from the central area. # e areas beyond , Amoi Street participants’ response, i.e. whenever a participant and Upper Pickering Street only garnered about 20% chooses a location as constituting Chinatown, he will of the participants, causing notable landmarks such always also include the areas within this parcel at the as # ian Hock Keng Temple to be situated on the minimal. For example, in ! gure 6 marked by the red “outskirts” of Chinatown. box, a participant who has selected the area adjacent to the Chinatown Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) will Using URA’s demarcation of Chinatown (see ! g. always have selected the minimal of the area bounded 8) as a basis for comparison, it can be seen that the by , Smith Street and South Bridge Kreta Ayer district of URA’s map coincides exactly Road, and hence this area can be identi! ed as a single with the parcel that is most perceived as being unit for analysis. # e division of parcels are also in Chinatown. # e Telok Ayer district starts o" with a part based on the demarcation of Chinatown by strong 80%, but declines rapidly eastwards to 30% URA and STB so that a comparative analysis can be past Amoi Street and less than 10% past Cecil Road. done at a later stage. Bukit Pasoh as a whole only has about 20%, while the Tanjong Pagar District has less than 10%. On the As can be seen from the choropleth map (see ! g. other hand, although the parcel between Kreta Ayer 7), the central parcel adjacent to the Chinatown and Bukit Pasoh is not recognized by URA as part MRT Station bounded by Upper Cross Street, Smith of Chinatown, 90% of the participants felt otherwise. Street and is most frequently # is disparity will be discussed in the next section. perceived as “Chinatown,’ with all 91 participants indicating this parcel as being part of Chinatown. # e MRT Station itself has become an iconic indicator of Chinatown, a building that people has come to associate with Chinatown. Several participants even

Figure 7. Choropleth map of people’s perception of what constitutes Chinatown. # e colour scale refers to the percentage of participants who perceive that Figure 6. Map of parcel allocation. parcel as being part of Chinatown. USP Undergraduate Journal | 40

A comparison with STB’s mapping (see !g. 9) From !gure 10, it can be seen that of the 91 shows that the district of Greater Town as being participants of the survey, 63% correctly identi!ed most frequently mapped to constitute Chinatown. either STB or URA as the planning authority in "is indicates a certain degree of success STB has Chinatown, out of which only 7% identi!ed both. had with the place making of Chinatown, because of 12% of the participants were partially correct in the emphasis STB has place on it over the other two identifying the Kreta Ayer GRC and the Chinatown districts. STB has marketed the district as the site Business Association, because these groups are capable of the main attractions in Chinatown (STB 2008a), of in$uencing policies and have a limited degree of and the gathering of these social activities have autonomy in planning activities or e#ecting change in thus worked in creating the sense of attachment for Chinatown. "is leaves 25% of the participants who Chinatown. "e spatial distribution of what people identi!ed National Heritage Board and the Singapore perceived to be Chinatown however does not seem Land Authority wrongly as the planning authorities, to be a#ected by STB’s marking of the boundaries. with one participant who indicated that he did not Moving from the central parcel to Cecil Road, one even know that there were planning authorities for would have passed by all three districts of STB’s Chinatown. map, yet there does not appear to be any signi!cant pattern associated with the change from one district "e problems of this lies in the breakdown of to another; the original trend identi!ed where the communication between the public and government further one moves away from the central parcel, the agencies. Even with the government agencies less recognized it is as part of Chinatown seems to having online platforms facilitating convenient hold more strongly. means for public feedback on policies, the public have di%culties in ensuring that they are heard by "is mapping exercise has not only indicated the relevant planning authorities, as shown in the areas frequently perceived as part of Chinatown, survey results. Moreover, as it was observed during but also highlighted the areas omitted by the the “Boosting the Chinatown Experience” planning people and government agencies and deemed to session, the di#erences in boundaries also mean be outside Chinatown. Most importantly, it has that there is an increase in unnecessary bureaucracy visually illustrated the disparity that occurs between occurring between the government agencies as they policy-makers’ conception of Chinatown and the negotiate their di#erent understanding of Chinatown public’s perception of Chinatown. "e di#erence and whether or not something should be under their in boundaries by the di#erent groups are not jurisdiction. insigni!cant; large areas that one party considers Chinatown are omitted in another’s map. Policies Contestation and place making strategies employed are made less e#ective, or even futile, when people cannot even As was previously mentioned, visions and agree on what or where is Chinatown. In the next objectives of planning authorities can be undermined section, I will thus present a case for the consolidation due to the lack of a common understanding of what of Chinatown, starting with its boundaries and constitutes Chinatown. I shall proceed to outline one zoning. "e Problems of Lacking a De!nite Boundary such case study.

Having an ambiguous boundary, or the lack of a From the interview with Mr. Chua, the Assistant boundary that is readily recognized and accepted by Chief Executive of the Destination Experience the people, compound two major problems involving Group from the STB, he explained that, currently, communication between the public and government “Chinatown is lacking a vibrant residential agencies, and contestation of government policies. population,’ hence leading to “the stagnantation and decline of the area with a growing reliance on Communication local and foreign visitors.” In order to promote a greater live-in population like other housing estates, In the case of Chinatown, with two main encourage the organic sustainability of Chinatown government bodies having di#erent boundaries, the and dispel the view that Chinatown is an aging and public are uncertain of the authority that is in charge elderly district, STB and URA worked together in of planning Chinatown. For example, while the Kreta “pushing for the development of Duxton Heights Ayer People’s "eatre is not under URA’s jurisdiction Residences, with an addition of 1848 middle-class based on their zoning, the public may wrongly and young families that are able to boost consumption assume that it is simply because it is bounded by and growth in Chinatown while contributing to the buildings and shophouses that are conserved under vibrancy of Chinatown.” URA’s policies. "e survey results on the perceived planning authority in Chinatown support the stand However, as can be seen from the choropleth map that the public are confused and unaware of the (see !g. 8), Duxton Heights Residences is situated actual planning authority. at Duxton Road in the Tanjong Pagar district of URA’s mapping, which is also one of the areas least Volume 4, Issue 1, Jan 2012 | 41

Figure 8. URA’s demarcation of Chinatown. Based Figure 9. STB’s demarcation of Chinatown. Based on on Conservation Plan (URA 2000) Chinatown Experience Guide Plan—A Business & Development Blueprint (STB 2008a)

Figure 10. # e perceived planning Authority in Chinatown. Source: Author survey data. identi! ed with Chinatown. While the government Chinatown Experience Guide in 1998, which agencies believed that they had managed to reduce speci! cally addresses the issue of green spaces as the age demography of Chinatown and increased “areas of revitalization,’ preserving and promoting the “vibrancy” and economic independence of the the usage of natural environments such as the area, more than 90% of the participants would Park and Telok Ayer Green Park, have considered Duxton Heights to be outside of our survey participants still felt that insu" cient Chinatown and hence having minimal impact on work was being done to uphold the “Garden City” the area itself. In the eyes of the public, Chinatown image in Chinatown (see ! g. 11). Many of the is still perceived as an aging and elderly district, survey participants highlighted the lack of trees in and the economic bene! ts Duxton Heights brought Chinatown, with one participant even claiming that to the Kreta Ayer District (which people equate as Chinatown is “a desert of old buildings made to look Chinatown) is questionable. new.” # e disparity in policies implemented and the resulting ground sentiments could be understood Similarly, despite STB’s implementation of the again in terms of Chinatown’s boundaries. # ese USP Undergraduate Journal | 42 parks are frequently located at the fringe areas of street signs and lamp posts or distinctively Oriental Chinatown that people less frequently identify as designs (see # gs. 12 and 13). being part of the community, hence, despite sustained e! orts in the preservation of green spaces within While it is recognized that these ornamentations Chinatown, the public is still of the opinion that the might be deemed inauthentic by some, especially the e! orts are insu" cient. residents, it is the concept of these physical entities that is important and not the design or style. $ ese Place Making within a Uni! ed physical entities, whatever form that they may take, serve as focus points for place making processes, and Boundary also act as visual indicators for people to recognize their location in Chinatown. Over time, this easily In solving a problem, it is logical to start by # rst recognizable boundary of Chinatown will become de# ning in exact terms what the subject and scope de# nitive, with both the government agencies and is. In order to lessen the problem of communication the people sharing a mutual understanding of the between the government and the public, and at the spatial extent of Chinatown. $ is would thus result same time reduce contestation of current policies, in policies seen as rightfully a! ecting sections perhaps it is most prudent to begin by giving of Chinatown itself rather than areas outside Chinatown a tangible form in terms of a de# nite Chinatown. boundary. In conjunction with the physical entities, taking Beyond papers and plans, the boundary also has into consideration the number of foreign visitors to exist on the landscape itself, where any passerby Chinatown hosts, o" cial publications of Chinatown is able to judge with some sense of accuracy if one can also make a greater e! ort in portraying is within Chinatown. While maps and brochures Chinatown as a whole instead of only selected parts, will be a good complement to the physical entities such as in # gure 14, where the areas of Bukit Pasoh constituting the boundary of Chinatown, they cannot and Tanjong Pagar have been omitted, e! ectively be the sole markers. $ is is because, as it has been negating their membership as part of Chinatown, shown previously, the physical entities (together with which is then implied to the visitors utilizing this social activities) constitute the basis for place making map. processes that augments the spatiality of Chinatown. Without such tangible markers, it will be di" cult to A similar map of Chinatown produced by the generate the feelings of community and belonging Chinatown Business Association (see # g. 15) performs across the varied buildings and spaces comprising a better function of portraying Chinatown as a whole, Chinatown. Recognizable physical entities, as a lesson yet there is again a focus on the Kreta Ayer district, from various Chinatowns in the world, could take with places of interests to be found only in this area. the form of street ornamentation such as red coloured A more uni# ed approach would be to include places

Figure 11. Survey results showing the areas that participants felt the government were unsuccessful in addressing. Source: Author survey data. Volume 4, Issue 1, Jan 2012 | 43

noted that these entities are not only to be seen, but experienced through participation and involvement. !ere could possibly be the organization of Mandarin or dialect singing competitions, allowing the aroma of food to permeate the air instead of being trapped in air-conditioned restaurants or sanitized by air "ltration systems, and as always, in the case of Singapore, the tasting of delectable dishes. With such an experience, people will then come to attach a greater sense of a#ection and remembrance for Chinatown, enhancing the place making process. Conclusions !e complexity of Chinatown in its organization and planning by multiple government organizations, the number of stakeholders in the wide ranging type of businesses and residents, and the sheer volume of visitors both foreign and local makes it a community that is in constant $ux and change. Within this framework, the lack of a recognizable boundary in the landscape itself has caused a disruption in communication between the planning bodies and the public, and at the same time, there has arisen a contestation of policies due to the di#erent understanding of what constitutes Chinatown. !ese problems, however, can be resolved through the demarcation of a clearer boundary of Chinatown, Figures 12 (top) & 13 (bottom). Photographs of one that is agreed upon and relied on by the various Vancouver’s Chinatown with red street lamps and government agencies, planning bodies and the minature dragon designs. Source: Author. public. In this inclusive demarcation, encompassing all the elements that have been deemed as part of of interests located throughout Chinatown, such as Chinatown, the place making process will aid in the “revitalization spots” of Telok Ayer Green Park reinforcing the community attachment to these and entertainment centres along . !is locations and the identi"cation of their membership can then advertise the variety of activities that one to Chinatown over time, reducing their contestations. can participate in Chinatown, portraying it as a It is only with the physical entities constructing a destination that goes beyond the archetypal historic single boundary of Chinatown that there then will and cultural tours. be an enhanced awareness in representing Chinatown as a whole. Aligned with the governmental policies The Future of Place Making in of creating a “holistic Chinatown experience,” this renewed representation will then better cater to the Chinatown multitudinous needs and purposes of the community and visitors alike. While focusing on place making processes, it should, however, be remembered that place making is the development of a sense of attachment to a place, and that this sense of attachment will be most kindled in active experiences. !ere should not only be a maintenance on the “focus on the visual environment, but also on the lived intelligence of the bodily sense, where occularcentrism do not impoverish the architectural experience of a location” (Pallasmaa 2005: 67). Memories and association to a place solely based on sight will place the person at a distance from the environment, but an involvement of multiple senses can better immerse the person in the surroundings, developing a greater sense of attachment to the place. While focusing on the physical entities of Chinatown, it should therefore be USP Undergraduate Journal | 44

Figure 14. Map of Chinatown by the STB in the form of a brochure, obtainable from the Chinatown Heritage Centre.

Figure 15. Map of Chinatown by the Chinatown Business Association (CBA), depicting places of interest. Source: CBA, available at http://www.chinatown.org.sg/english/map.htm Volume 4, Issue 1, Jan 2012 | 45

References Gupta, Akhil. 1992. !e Song of the nonaligned world: Transnational Identities and the reinscription of space in late capitalism. Space, identity, and the politics of di"erence. Cultural Anthropology 7: 1–26. Nyerges, Timothy. 2009. GIS and Society. In International encyclopedia of human geography, 506–12, edited by Rob Kitchin and Nigel !rift. London, England: Elsevier Ltd. Pallasmaa, Juhani. 2005. !e eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. In Spaces of memory and imagination, 67–70, edited by Wiley-Academy. West Sussex, England: Wiley-Academy. Schuurman, Nadine. 2009. Critical GIS. In International encyclopedia of human geography, 363–8, edited by Rob Kitchin and Nigel !rift. London, England: Elsevier Ltd. Singapore Tourism Board. 1998. Enhancing the Chinatown experience. Singapore: Singapore Tourism Board. ———. 2008a. Chinatown experience guide plan. In A business and development blueprint. Singapore: Singapore Tourism Board. ———. 2008b. Overview of the tourism sector performance. In Annual report on tourism statistics 2008, 5. Urban Redevelopment Authority. 2000. Historic district chinatown. In Conservation Plan, 1–5. Drawing Number M09/15/1/118 Dec 2000. ———. 2008a. Zoning and plot ration. In !e planning act, master plan written statement 2008, 3–7. ———. 2008b. List of monuments subject to a preservation order. In !e planning act, master plan written statement 2008, 17–9. Wood, Joseph. 1997. Vietnamese American place making in northern Virginia. Geographical Review 87: 58–72.

Yi Fong is an aspiring teacher who loves to tell stories. Most of his research is thus focused on the narratives of local places, their impacts and relationships with the people. He is a proud and graduating Geographer who enjoys both human and physical geography. This paper is written for his group Independent Study Module with Dr T.C. Chang, with invaluable help from his group mates Teo Min Xun and Shawn Quek from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.