GLOBALISATION, IDENTITY AND HERITAGE TOURISM: A CASE STUDY OF SINGAPORE‟S KAMPONG GLAM DAVID TANTOW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2009 GLOBALISATION, IDENTITY AND HERITAGE TOURISM: A CASE STUDY OF SINGAPORE‟S KAMPONG GLAM DAVID TANTOW (B. Sc. and M. Sc.) A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2009 2 ABSTRACT The thesis analyses the impact of ethnic policies on heritage districts in post-colonial nations, through a case study of Malay-Muslim minority heritage in Singapore. The dissertation explores the link between nation building with its ―politics of heritage‖ and tourism-induced cultural changes, and considers these two factors shaping representations of ethnic heritage in combination; a combination that has not been sufficiently discussed in most previous tourism studies. It shows that the Singapore government has not developed an exact definition of the Malay contribution to the social identity of Singaporeans and multicultural nation building. Applying a perspective from urban geography on the consequences of urban renewal on the minority district of Kampong Glam, I argue that the role that Malay-Muslim culture should have played in the representation of ethnic heritage after the end of urban renewal in 1989 was also unclear. Since the government did not define a theme of representation for Kampong Glam‘s urban environment, tourism brokers developed their own interpretation of the Malay-Muslim legacy. They displayed a ―cosmopolitan‖ Middle Eastern representation of Muslim heritage, largely neglecting the local Malay minority community. This glamorous and cosmopolitan representation of heritage inaccurately portrays the local Muslim population as an Arab trading caste, emphasising their ancient trade connections with the Middle East. In contrast, the Singapore government‘s nation building approach continues to disregard the urban legacy of the local Malay-Muslim community, largely ignoring their prominence as seafarers and explorers, a fact that indicates that ―The myth of the lazy native‖ (Alatas 1977) persists in relation to the Malay community after Singapore‘s independence. The analysis is based on one year of ethnographic research in the Malay-Muslim heritage district, combined with an in-depth survey of its business community with a response rate of 64%, 350 multi-lingual questionnaires of Singaporean visitors and tourists and 25 in-depth interviews with selected local stakeholders. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many great people have helped me during the past four years while I was working on this thesis. I am grateful to all of them; they have made my time in Singapore exciting and also contributed to make it an academically enriching experience for me. I hope that I can thank them all: Thanks to Prof. T.C. Chang, who is indeed a great motivator. He always supported me when things did not go too well and always gave me the freedom for my own accentuations as well as when I was TA-ing. I will always remember our time together fondly. The other members of my committee, Prof. K.C. Ho of Sociology and Prof. John Miksic of Southeast Asian Studies greatly contributed to my learning process as a PhD student. Thanks, K.C., for your help with my data analysis, and thanks, John, for your first-hand insights about the local history and archaeology. I also would like to thank all other faculty members who took an interest in my research and gave me tips about relevant literature or fieldwork approaches. Special thanks to Prof. Tim Bunnell for sharing his insights about ―Malay modernity‖ and Prof. Nathalie Oswin for going through my theoretical framework with me. Old friends and many family members flew halfway across the globe to visit and support me, some of them came on several visits. Thank you, ―Mama, Papa und Nora‖ for bringing me news from home and moral support. Thanks to Eveline, David, Stefan and Caroline for spending time with me in Singapore and helping me to get my PhD started and thanks to Claude for computer support. Thanks to my new friends in Singapore. Many helped me with my surveys and interviews. Thank you, Mike, Satchko and Yuka for helping me reach out to Asian tourists. Thanks to Brian, Jennifer and Isdino for help with the Malay language and taking the great pictures of Kampong Glam. Thanks to NUS for the generous and steady financial support that enabled me to concentrate on my research. David Tantow, Singapore, December 2009 4 ABBREVIATIONS ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations CPG Corporate Planning Group KGBA Kampong Glam Business Association LTA Land Transport Authority MHC Malay Heritage Centre NUS National University of Singapore STB Singapore Tourism Board (successor of the STPB) STPB Singapore Tourism Promotion Board (after 1997 STB) URA Urban Redevelopment Authority WW I World War I WW II World War II 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. 10 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 12 1.1 The Post-Colonial Crises of Identity and Heritage Tourism ........................................................ 16 1.2 Exploring Links between Heritage, Tourism and Post-Colonial Identity ...................................... 21 1.2.1 The Commodification of Heritage for Tourism .......................................................................................... 24 1.2.2 “Politics of Heritage” ................................................................................................................................ 25 1.2.3 Acceptance or Contestation of Heritage ..................................................................................................... 27 1.2.4 The Tourist Consumption of Heritage ........................................................................................................ 28 1.3 Kampong Glam: A Timely Case Study on Representation.......................................................... 30 1.4 Overview of the Thesis ........................................................................................................... 34 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Considerations .................................................. 38 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 38 2.2 Place Identity and the Representation of Ethnic Heritage ........................................................... 41 2.2.1 Globalisation and Heritage – The Destruction of Local Uniqueness? ....................................................... 41 2.2.2 Multiple Outcomes of Cultural Globalisation: The Global–Local Nexus .................................................. 44 2.2.3 Heritage Landscapes, Nation-Building and Global Tourism ..................................................................... 48 2.3 A Post-Colonial Perspective on Heritage Tourism in Multi-Ethnic States .................................... 54 2.3.1 A Brief History of Post-Colonialism ........................................................................................................... 54 2.3.2 The Post-Colonial Perspective and Tourism Studies .................................................................................. 56 2.3.3 Kampong Glam and the Post-Colonial Discourse ...................................................................................... 60 2.3.4 “Hybridisation” and the Creation of New Place Identities ........................................................................ 63 2.3.5 Post-Colonial Nation-Building, Multiculturalism and Multiracialism ....................................................... 64 2.3.6 From Post-Colonial Multiracialism to Cosmopolitanism ........................................................................... 68 2.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 71 3. Methodology.................................................................................................................. 74 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 74 3.2 Methodological Commitment and Conceptual Framework ......................................................... 74 3.3 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 77 3.3.1 In-depth Interviews ..................................................................................................................................... 78 3.3.2 Questionnaire Surveys ................................................................................................................................ 80 3.3.3 Participant Observation ............................................................................................................................. 85 3.3.4 Secondary Data .......................................................................................................................................... 87 3.4 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................