remaking local heritage for tourism har paw

Pergamon

Annals ofTourism Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, 192-213, 1997 pp. Copynght 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0160-7383/96 $17.00+0.00

PII: SOlSO-7383(96)00054-O

REMAKING LOCAL HERITAGE FOR TOURISM

Peggy Teo Brenda S. A. Yeoh

National University of Singapore, Singapore

Abstract: The paper outlines the development of Haw Par Villa as a philanthropic gift for leisure among locals to its revisioning by private enterprise and by the national tourism board as a commercial venture. Against this background, a survey was conducted among the local population to ascertain their reactions to the remaking of local heritage and among tourists to determine their perceptions of the “new” attraction. While locals cling to the personal and valued memories of the old villa, tourists consume the theme park in terms of a commodity package. The dichotomous reaction underscores the importance that must be given to local landscapes in the planning of cultural and/or historical attractions. Keywords: commodification, theme park, authenticity, global-local nexus. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

R&urn& La reconversion du patrimoine local pour le tourisme. L’article trace le dtveloppement de la Villa Haw Par en tant que cadeau philanthropique pour les loisirs des habitants locaux g sa reconception par une entreprise privCe et par le conseil national du tourisme comme entreprise commerciale. Dans ce contexte, on a ment une enqu&te parmi la population locale afin de constater leurs rEactions B la reconversion du patrimoine local et parmi les touristes pour dtterminer leurs perceptions de la “nouvelle” attraction. Pendant que les habitants locaux s’accrochent au prCcieux souvenirs personnels de la vieille villa, les touristes consomment le part h thPme comme produit ou marchandise. La rtaction dichotomique souligne I’importance qui se doit aux paysages locaux dans la planification des attractions cultwelles et historiques. Mots-cl&: marchandisage, part B th?me, authenticite, connection locale-globale. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION

The importance of tourism as an industry in Singapore cannot be overemphasized. Annual visitor arrivals passed the 6 million mark in 1993, a growth of 7.3% over the previous year. Asian tourists accounted for most of this growth (70%), coming mainly from Japan, Taiwan, Republic of Korea, and China. Tourism receipts also increased by 9.4% to US$6.24 billion (S$9.36 billion). This represented 19.3% of Singapore’s total service exports (STPB 1993/94:3).

This strong performance, however, has not been a consistent phenomenon. During the worldwide economic recession in the early 8Os, the tourism industry was punctuated with uncertainty. Singapore witnessed a drop in tourism receipts between 1982 and 1986 (STPB 1989:33) which triggered off considerable panic in the industry. To

Peggy Teo and Brenda Yeoh are senior lecturers in the Department of Geography, National University of Singapore (Kent Ridge Cresent, Singapore 119260. Email [email protected]). Besides tourism, their research interests include issues concerning aging populations, historical geography, and the geography of gender.

192

TEO AND YEOH 193

redress this problem, Singapore responded by embarking on an ambitious plan to improve and create tourism attractions beginning in 1984. The Tourism Product Development Plan spelled out five major themes on which to weave the island’s isolated pockets of places of interest into a critical mass of attractions: Exotic East, Colonial Heritage, Clean and Green Garden City, Tropical Island Resorts, and International Sports Events (MT1 1986; Teo and Huang 1995). The Colonial Heritage theme highlights Singapore’s nostalgic past in old buildings and places associated with colonial rule. It is complemented by Clean and Green City, which oversees the redevelopment of exist- ing parks such as Fort Canning Park and the creation of green lungs in the city area. The Tropical Island Resorts theme involves the development of the outer islands of Singapore (e.g., Sentosa Island) into beach resorts and theme parks, while marinas built on these islands will serve international sports events such as the Singapore Inshore Powerboat Grand Prix. Of particular interest to this paper is the Exotic East theme, which seeks to preserve Singapore’s unique cultures by conserving and revitalizing historical areas such as Chinatown and Little India.

What is being done to revive or create new historical and cultural attractions in Singapore is reminiscent of place marketing strategies employed in the European as well as North American continents. These strategies are the outcome of the interplay between global economic forces on the one hand and local level planning on the other. At the global scale, economic restructuring has meant the de- industrialization of the city and the emergence of the service sector as the main employer and income generator (Harvey 1990). As multinational companies move their operations from their homebases to various corners of the world, the decline in manufacturing jobs in many European and North American cities positions tourism, among other services, as a vital business strategy for economic regeneration in these cities. The selling of local places to tourists is now “big business” (Sharpley 1994:156). T 0 a very large extent, time-space compression facilitated by improved communications has further strengthened globalization forces and raised fears that places which are sold as tourism products may lose their place particularity to cornmodification (Bianchini and Schwengel 1991; Frieden and Sagalyn 1989; Lowe 1993; Massey 1993; Robins 199 1; Squire 1993; Urry 1990).

For instance, commentators such as Cohen (1988) and MacCannell (1976) have raised concern about the replacement of real authenticity by “staged” authenticity in the manufacture of cultural and historical attractions. MacCannell suggested that sites can be made “sacred” by tourists-rather than appreciating the intrinsic qualities of a place such as beauty, antiquity, or associations arising out of the people and cultures living in the place, tourists can deliberately select qualities which they deem of value. In such sacralization of space, tourists’ expectations act as market forces shaping the landscape. Com- modification becomes the inevitable outcome as culture and history become produced or staged for touristic consumption. In Lowenthal’s words, “If the past is a foreign country, nostalgia has made it the foreign country with the healthiest tourist trade of all” (1985:4). The

194 REMAKING LOCAL HERITAGE

past is transformed from being the intrinsic local roots of a place to a palatable slice of nostalgia which fuels a robust “heritage” and “culture” industry in capitalist economies (Britton 1991; Hewison 1987). Insofar as these are flourishing industries, cultural and recreational pursuits and places will be packaged to appeal to the “tourists’ way of seeing” (Relph 1976:85). I n many cases, heritage is said to be interpreted for a consumer (usually by corporate power) to the extent that there is no direct focus on the artifact or area for itself (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990:25). Within this evolving culture of consumption, authenticity, defined as the accurate presentation of the past through the conservation of its relict features, becomes no more than an academic definition since “relics and events of the past [are] as a raw material which can be selectively quarried and use[d] in accordance with contemporary attitudes” (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990:29). The “tour- istization” of places for urban heritage tourism has ranged from waterfronts, festival marketplaces, downtown malls to tourist-historic districts (Chang, Mime, Fallon and Pohlmann 1996). It has pervaded cities of the United States, such as San Francisco, Philadelphia, Bal- timore, and Boston (Date1 and Dingemans 1988; Law 1993), and across the Atlantic in Bradford, Liverpool, London, Leeds, and Paris (Townsend 1992; Urry 1990; Yale 199 1).

Recently, selective screening and cornmodification of landscapes for tourism have come under attack (Boniface and Fowler 1993; Bram- ham, Henry, Mommaas and van der Poe1 1989; Crick 1994; Goodwin 1993; Urry 1990) accompanied by a call for greater weight being given to local mediating forces so that native needs to assert identity and to accentuate differences can be expressed (Ashworth 1993; Kearns 1993; Ley 1989; Tunbridge 1984). According to Chang, Milne, Fallon and Pohlmann, “although heritage tourism may be the chosen strategy, different destinations tend to accentuate themes peculiar to their culture and location as a way to differentiate themselves from competitors” (1996:287). B ecause local particularity cannot be completely transcended, global processes must engage with resident factors. Conflict and negotiation between residents and community groups who express local concerns, on the one hand, and the state and entrepreneurs who often harken to global forces, on the other, characterize major items on the research agenda of urban heritage tourism today.

A product par excellence of this global-local nexus is the cultural theme park. It is at once a product of global trends (of American origin) to manufacture leisure sites using a themed approach and borrows a technological strategy which has been implemented suc- cessfully elsewhere, while at the same time drawing on some aspect of local culture and history as its distinguishing feature or selling point (Sorkin 1992; Zukin 199 1). Using a specific theme park as an example, this paper evaluates the extent to which tourism as a homogenizing force has influenced and impacted heritage and authenticity in the Singapore landscape. To show how landscapes can be manipulated to cater to tourism demand, it focuses on the trans- formation of Haw Par Villa, once the artfully decorated home of a flamboyant businessman’s brother which was open to the public as a

TEO AND YEOH 195

pleasure gardens and is now a theme park characterized by thrill rides and technological wizardry. First, Singapore’s Tourism Product Development Plan will be examined in greater detail to uncover how the state and corporate bodies intended to shape and change the landscape according to what they believed tourists desire to see and experience. The mutual supportiveness of state and enterprise is highlighted to show how heritage is used as an “enabling concept [for]...national...(re)development” (Corner and Harvey 1991:53). In particular, how heritage and culture are used to create a “more lively and engaging” representation that will cater to an “almost always cornmodified leisure culture” (Corner and Harvey 1991:72) is illumi- nated. Second, the paper will compare state and corporate views on this particular landscape with those of locals and tourists. A comparison of the different ways in which these groups “consume” Haw Par Villa as a leisure product is of particular salience because it allows the juxtaposition of two perspectives: on the one hand, the views of those who can lay claims to various degrees of insideness (Rowles 1978, 1983) as locals who have enjoyed the villa as a leisure spot before its refurbishment in 1990 as a tourism attraction; and, on the other, the views of tourists, outsiders whose encounters with the villa are brief and devoid of personal memory of the place. By bringing the two together, the paper will argue that both global and local forces should play their parts in shaping heritage tourism sites in Singapore.

THE MARKETING OF A CULTURAL THEME PARR

Tourism and leisure environments incorporating theme parks often falsify time and place (Shaw and Williams 1994: 168). Place marketeers repackage historical events and geographical areas in a fashion that aims primarily to enhance attractiveness to the leisure public and tourists. Locally-rooted traditions, lifestyles, and the arts are often compressed into a space and presented in a legible fashion for leisure consumption. The loose use of culture for the purpose of selling places can give rise to tension and conflict especially if the people within that place feel that the cultural and historical materials portrayed by place marketeers are “inappropriate” (Shaw 1992; Zukin 1991).

A number of key players are involved in the relationship between local areas and tourism development: the local people who are con- cerned with conserving their heritage and features in the environment which signify the locality in which they live; private sector owners and potential owners of tourism-related services and attractions; and the state or local authorities (Urry 1990:112). In particular, the latter two are powerful forces. Selling places often does not only involve the local planning authority but also local and multinational resources of capital and enterprise. Bianchini and Schwengel(1991), Cloke (1992), and Duncan and Goodwin (1985, 1988) have elucidated this concept of “Thatcherism” or the “New Right”, whereby local authorities such as urban development authorities or tourism boards have “internal- ized the idea that the interests of a place are best served by lifting the ‘dead hand’ of regulation and by opening it to the sway of market


forces” (Philo and Kearns 1993: 19). In the course of events, landscapes come to reflect the ideas of elite groups. Quite often, state and private enterprise stand in agreement about their goals. For example, there is often a commitment to achieving economic goals which, in turn, strongly influence their objectives and planning. Jackson (1989) sug- gests that for the sake of achieving these goals, the state may impose its hegemony on the people, not forcefully but persuasively, using the argument that the benefits derived are also for them and that their plans will bring about money and growth, jobs and economic (re)gen- eration.

In the designing of tourism attractions, Ashworth and Tunbridge’s (1990:23-27) useful distinction between the concepts of authenticity and heritage ought to be noted. While authenticity derives from the intrinsic aesthetic or historic value of an objectlplacefor its sake, heritage derives its meaning from the user. Heritage contains a past as well as a legatee for which the past is preserved. In other words, there is a market value for heritage. Heritage, therefore, poses the important question of “whose heritage ?” but is also logically defined only in terms of that market. With the rapid growth of tourism and the desire to harvest from this growth, planning for and selling tourism attractions such as in a theme park may sometimes result in unde- sirable and unintended effects. Placelessness, which is defined by Relph as “an environment...[in which the] underlying attitude...does not acknowledge significance in places...cutting roots, eroding symbols” (1976: 143), is a warranted concern. Investments must be made wisely so that possible negative impacts of tourism may be averted.

Haw Par Villa

Haw Par Villa is the legacy of Aw Boon Haw, a millionaire whose business empire in Asia included pharmaceutical companies, publishing firms, and a bank. Characterized as a flamboyant personality with a flair for publicity, he made his early fortunes from Tiger Balm, an ointment heavy with camphor and menthol which boasts the ability to cure headaches, rheumatism, and stomach discomforts among other ailments. Aw Boon Haw’s empire was shared with his younger brother, Aw Boon Par (their names when translated from Chinese mean “Tiger” and “Leopard”, respectively) with whom he had a close bond (King 1992). The villa was Boon Haw’s gift to his brother.

The location at Pasir Panjang Hill (Figure 1) was chosen for its harmonious geomantic elements. Fronted by sea and backed by a hill, the mansion was built on a 3 ha site in 1937. A first indication of its opulence was already apparent at the main entrance. Since Haw Par Villa means “Villa of the Tiger and Leopard”, the entrance was adorned by an archway which was guarded by the tiger on the right and the leopard on the left (Figure 2). In the compound, the public area of the villa, a large swimming pool (one of the first to be built in Singapore), and a “signature” pond shaped in the Chinese character of the family name were found. The grounds also featured several stone animals such as snakes, rhinoceros, kangaroos, gorillas, and

TEO AND YEOH 197

Figure 1. Location and Layout of Haw Par Villa

deer as a testament to Aw’s fetish for wildlife. These were placed amid caves and grottos where the tiger and leopard established their territoriality and security.

Aw Boon Haw had not intended the gardens to be only a place of relaxation but also one in which moral lessons could be learned. Over a period of time from 1937 to his death in 1954, he commissioned over 1,000 statues and 150 brilliantly colored giant tableaux centered around Chinese folklore, legends, and history. Many of these depicted moral lessons in simple terms such as “Evil Does Not Pay” and “Good Triumphs Over Evil”. A series of tableaux entitled “Virtues and Vices” drew on everyday lessons such as the need for thrift, filial piety, and loyalty. Metaphors and allegories were also used. Animals dressed up as humans were depicted in human situations so that visitors may ponder on the similarities of what they see with themselves. Legends with a moral edge, such as pious Tang Zhen’s journey to the West in


Figure 2. The Main Archway of Haw Par Villa. The Tiger as the Ruling Icon is Placed in the Center

search of the Buddhist Scriptures, dwelt on the strength and righteousness of their characters as well as their dedication to their country. Perhaps the most unforgettable tableau was the “Ten Courts of Hell”, a Taoist version of purgatory where souls were summoned for judgment before reincarnation. In this netherworld, vivid scenes of gore such as tongues being cut off for lying and gossiping, hearts cut out for injustice, bodies being speared (Figure 3), charred or grilled for disrespect to elders, bodies being disembowelled for prostitution or boiled for cheating, arson, or drug trafficking spelled out lurid scenes of the consequences of a lack of morality. These were the objects that made the gardens so unique that they would “draw thousands to gape and marvel” (King 1992:322). The gardens themselves became known as the Tiger Balm Gardens, a name which associated immediately with a product that had become a household name.

Haw Par Villa was declared a public property after the death of Boon Haw. Eng Aun Tong, the company which manufactured Tiger Balm, was made to donate approximately US$33,000 (hereafter, all dollars are US$) a year to the upkeep of the gardens for the public. By the 7Os, this amount had increased to about $67,000 (The Straits Times 1980). It should be noted that the villa and parts of the gardens were destroyed during the Japanese Occupation. After the war, res- toration started and some new sculptures, copying well known international icons such as the Statue of Liberty, a set of Sumo wrestlers, and a garuda were added. Altogether, there were eight international corners established in the gardens.

In the Tourism Task Force Report submitted to the state in 1984, it was suggested that one of the main problems that Singapore’s tourism

TEO AND YEOH 199

Figure 3. The Eighth Court of Hell, where a Man is Speared for Disrespect to his Elders and a Woman’s Guts are Cut Out for Prostitution

industry faced was the loss of the island’s oriental mystique. The other reasons cited for the poor performance of the industry included high costs which made Singapore an uncompetitive destination, the poor state of the world economy, and unfavorable foreign exchange rates (MT1 1984). Th e 1 oss of oriental mystique weighed heavily on the state because of huge investments in infrastructure-airport, hotels, and shopping centers-which made it necessary to sustain a high growth rate in tourism in order to reap returns on investment. To attract tourists, the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (STPB) maintained the need to bring back the island’s tropical charm and romance; among the ways identified to do this was Haw Par Villa. Chinatown, Little India, and Bussorah Street (the heart of Arab-Malay culture) were other complementary attractions selected for development and promotion under the cultural-heritage theme. As a showcase of Chi- nese heritage, Haw Par Villa fell under the “Exotic East” theme. The recommendation was to turn the villa into a “high-tech entertainment” center (The Straits Times 1986a), while at the same time adapting modern technology for Asian culture to create a Chinese mythology park. The point emphasized by the STPB was that Haw Par Villa constituted a rich heritage of Chinese culture. However, it had fallen into disuse and required something spectacular to revive it. The answer seemed to lie in the “Disneyfication” of the park using technology to add life to the static attractions. The US-based Economic Research Associates (ERA), which had done similar studies for Disneyland in Los Angeles, was commissioned to do a feasibility study and eventually the villa was acquired by the government in 1986.


After the acquisition, a tender was put out for private enterprise to design and manage the theme park. Rather than redevelop Tiger Balm Gardens itself, the STPB preferred to pick the brains of private enterprise, especially those who had a good “track record and experience in major theme parks [and who are then capable ofl...assess[ing] the potential of the garden” (The Straits Times 1985). Some broad guidelines were given, namely, that the successful tender was expected to “restore, preserve, and improve the exhibits and provide high-tech entertainment” (Business Times 1985). The marrying of state support to private enterprise capital and ideas as a way to generate income from tourism in the case of Haw Par Villa serves as yet another affirmation of a larger global trend. The experience in Singapore is very similar to that in Albert Dock in Liverpool. Liverpool’s Merseyside Development Corporation followed the successful American formula of festival markets in the Inner Harbor of Baltimore and in Quincy Market in Boston as the model for attracting private enterprise into a public space (Bianchini and Scwengel 1991:2 16). In Singapore, a local consortium comprising Fraser and Neave and Times Publishing Berhad bid for and won the tender to develop Haw Par Villa as a tourism attraction for the STPB. In the hope of attracting tourists to Haw Par Villa, Rattaglia Associates Incorporated, an offshoot of Walt Disney Productions, was commissioned to design the park in such a way as to draw visitors “the way Disneyland and Epcot Center are doing in the US” (The Straits Times 1986b). As soon as International Theme Parks (Singapore) Private Ltd (ITP) was set up as the joint venture company to operate the park, the cornmodification of attractions at the park was set into process. From the start, the park was to be a project of “commercial concern”, requiring an injection of $20 million in Phase 1 alone. By the time it opened in 1990, $53 million had already been spent. The new Haw Par Villa was expected to attract 1.25-1.5 million visitors over 3 years after the refurbishment (The Straits Times 1986c).

The planned attractions included static as well as moving ones. Special effects, lasers, animation, and state-of-the-art technology were integral to key attractions such as “hair-raising encounters with the Chinese spirit world” conjured up through laser effects flashed at the audience. Visitors would also be able to ride through the Ten Courts of Hell as they wound their way through “the tortures of the dammed...earthquakes, cold winds and unseen hands reaching out unexpectedly from the dark”. They could also watch “mythological battles [fought out] in a simulated Sensurround undersea environment”. An 8-minute boat ride through two highspeed splashdowns would be the way to encounter the gods of Water, Wind and Rain in the Wrath of Water Gods Flume Ride. Alternatively, visitors could follow monk Tang Zhen’s famous journey to the West with his disciples through a series of “audio animation-imagineering special effects” (Business Times 1986). The exotic value of the park was capitalized upon through the use of technological wizardry. It was the opinion of the STPB that “Western visitors [would] find it [the villa] fascinating and one of a kind in the world”, while Asian visitors and Singaporeans would be “able to relate to the stories and morals depicted” (MT1

TEO AND YEOH 201

1986). The new leisure product even took on a different name: Dragon World. By the time the park opened, some of the attractions had been watered down in scale due to costs. Still intact were the Wrath of Gods Flume Ride; the Sensurround effect of the battles between the Immortals; the Ride through the Ten Courts of Hell but minus the “earthquakes, cold winds, and unseen hands”; other attractions, such as Legends and Heroes, were put together as an audio-visual presentation in the indoor auditorium.

The new Haw Par Villa of the 90s was written up by place marketeers as “the only Chinese mythological theme park in the world” which presents “a fantastical place where Gods do battle with spirits and monsters, where mischievious demons and playful nymphs wreck havoc on the lives of mere mortals” and where “a 60 meter dragon rules over all” (promotion pamphlet for Dragon World visitors). Two important issues can be singled out. First, the harnessing of the particularity of Haw Par Villa, a place that is inherently Chinese and therefore different from most Western theme parks, is emphasized so as to increase the competitiveness of Haw Par Villa in comparison to other tourism products elsewhere. Haw Par Villa can be said to be an explicit example of a global-local nexus, whereby a private-public partnership attempts to fit a jigsaw puzzle by forcing particularity or the “multiplicity of localities into an overall picture of a new global system” (R b o ins 1991:35). Second, in exploiting place history for capital, cornmodification has become the order of the day. The devel- opers of Dragon World found it expedient to rewrite the landscape according to its desired theme. Its blueprint for success harked back to a canonized Chinese culture and mythology rather than Aw Boon Haw’s idiosyncratic amalgam of Chinese characters, religious and moral emblems, bestial fantasies, and personal symbols. Those that did not fit the theme, for example, the Sumo wrestlers, a Spanish dancer, and a Greek discus thrower, were removed (Business Times 1986). The band of freelance snake-charmers who had plied their trade at the entrance of the villa since the 70s were also asked to leave (The Straits Times 1986d). Conversely, the Lady White Snake when resurrected acquired a husband and a maid “to complete her story” (The Straits Times 1990a). Besides changing symbolism, the philanthropic association of the park has been displaced by profit, as reflected by the hefty $11 admission charge. The many statues and tableaux which used to be the highlight of the villa are now only a backcloth for the new attractions: three hi-tech multimedia theaters, two rides, two open-air theaters for live performances, and an auto- mated puppet show (Fraser and Neave 1990:2).

What is the reaction of people to this technological wizardry? The views of 32 tourists and 32 locals are presented based on structured interviews conducted in May 1995. As far as possible, the quota sample reflects Singapore’s major demographic characteristics and the country composition of Singapore’s visitors (Table 1). Other than demographic data, all the questions asked were open-ended so that respondents could express their opinions in an uninhibited way. Struc- tured interviews, each lasting 30-40 minutes, were preferred over the long indepth qualitative survey because the study involved transient


Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents”

Categories Sample Singapore

Age of Respondents: 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 >55 Total

Ethnicity of Respondents: Chinese Malay Indian Others Total

Composition of Visitor Arrivals to Singapore:b ASEAN

J,ZZn Australia USA UK India

37.5 14.5 21.8 32.2 25.0 24.0

6.3 12.3 9.4 17.0

100.0 100.0

81.3 77.7 12.5 14.1 6.2 7.1 - 1.1

100.0 100.0

34.4 29.9 21.9 16.1

9.4 4.4 6.3 8.3 9.4 5.1

15.6 5.4 3.0 5.8

“Percentage. bOnly the top 7 countries have been included. The remaining 25% include Hong Kong, Germany, Korea, New Zealand, France, Netherlands, Scandinavia and others. Sources: Department of Statistics (1990:5, 21); STF’B (1990: 12).

visitors such as tourists. Locals were interviewed on the spot before their perceptions and opinions were affected by external factors. Inter- views were conducted in English, Malay, Mandarin, and Chinese dialect, depending on the respondent’s choice. Most of the interviews with the Japanese were conducted in English, those with the Tai- wanese were in Hokkien, and those with ASEAN visitors in Malay or English. As the sample size was relatively small, no attempt was made to test for statistical significance. Instead, the authors preferred to let the respondents’ statements, simple percentages, and the raw numbers speak for themselves. Unacknowledged quotations are ver- batim quotes of respondents in the survey. In addition, interviews were also conducted with the management and marketing personnel of ITP; however, the authors were not able to obtain permission to quote them. Nevertheless, the sentiments they expressed are very similar to the secondary sources cited in the text.

Local Perception

Haw Par Villa has “been around a long time” as a popular leisure spot “especially in the 50s and 60s”. As many as 85% of the respondents felt that the fact “everyone grows up hearing about Tiger Balm Gardens” makes Haw Par Villa a part of Singapore’s heritage. Of

TEO AND YEOH 203

these 27 respondents, one-third associated the villa directly with the Aw brothers whom they described as “two brothers who came from Burma” who were “founders of Tiger Balm” and belonged to “a wealthy and philanthropic family”. Another third felt that the villa should be preserved as part of Singapore’s heritage for future generations since it was Singapore’s “first public garden”, a historical leisure spot which can be described as a “survivor” in the rapidly changing landscape of Singapore. The fact that many parts of the original Tiger Balm Gardens are still intact (in particular, the 18 Luohan, Lady White Snake, the Eight Immortals, and Bai Zhe Quan were mentioned) sat well with these respondents, often “trigger[ring] off memories” for them. The Aw memorials and the famous archway which dominated the main entrance had the effect of evoking nostalgia for 63% ofall locals. The remaining one-third who characterized the villa as part of Singapore’s heritage considered it so because the park “tells us about Chinese folkore” which belongs to “nearly all of Singapore”. Only 15% suggested that Haw Par Villa was only a tourism attraction.

A strong sense of place can, therefore, be said to have developed out of local encounters with the gardens. In this sample, over 90% of the respondents who visited the villa had come as a child or teenager (the remaining 10% came as adults). These visits helped shape lasting values toward family and society. Many remembered the historical and moral lessons written into the statues and tableaux (29%). Some impressions were so strong they even instilled fear of hell (20%). The moral virtues of filial piety and thrift were also well remembered (IS.%). Others who spent “good times with family and friends” held fond memories of the place as one which helped to strengthen family and friendship bonds (20%). There were also some scattered impressions about the archway (3%), the various animal tableaux (6%), and the association of the gardens with Tiger Balm products or with the Aw brothers’ philanthrophy (6%). When the respondents were asked to recall the main attractions in the villa before its refurbishment, the answers again suggest strong impressions of this mem- orable landscape. In particular, the Ten Courts of Hell, especially that which told of “the consequences of lying” (55% of the respondents) constituted the most significant impression retained by locals who had visited the original villa. Others described the landscapes of folklore and mythology imbued with moral lessons to be learned (22%). Some remembered the open garden (4%) as the main attraction, it being a “good place for photographs” (4%) in which fond memories of good times were captured on celluloid for posterity. The remaining 15% did not say what the main attractions were to them.

The answers reflect the significance of the old Haw Par Villa/Tiger Balm Gardens as a part of personal memory and Singapore’s heritage. To some Singaporeans, Tiger Balm Gardens was definitely a legacy of their past, a heritage left to them by two wealthy and generous brothers with eccentric taste. To others, the Chinese theme super- ceded the brothers’ contribution and signifies the heritage value of the gardens. In either case, to most Singaporeans, the villa is part of Singapore’s history and culture and should be preserved for that


reason. Tiger Balm Gardens originated as a symbol of wealth, a distinctive biographical landscape created in a previous era of mini economic empires. But because of Boon Haw’s charity, the gardens became for Singaporeans also a part of their lives. Before television, the garden was one of the few places for recreation. In the 50s and 6Os, it continued as a popular spot which “the whole family could enjoy together” (The Straits Times 1990b). It was a place where “my nappies and I used to romp [amid]...the diabolical demons and garish gnomes” (The Straits Times 199Oc). Out of these moments, Tiger Balm Gardens became for Singaporeans a memory of meaningful times and hence a valued landscape. In the words of Relph, “there is an authenticity in the direct and genuine experience of the place” (1976:64). Because of the long history of the villa and the many generations who had benefitted from the benevolence of the Aw family, Haw Par Villa is also a part of Singapore’s heritage, defined at two levels: to those who used the park as a leisure spot; and to those who learned from and appreciated the tableaux on Chinese history, mythology, and folklore which they took to represent the heritage of the majority ethnic group in Singapore. About 78% of Singaporeans are Chinese, 14% Malay, 7% Indian and 1% Others (Department of Statistics 1990:5). Chinese Singaporeans view themselves to be direct beneficiaries of this collection to the extent of excluding the common heritage they share with the rest of Singapore’s cosmopolitan population. Nowhere else in Singapore is there such a concentration of cultural artifacts which is not inspired by the state; many other showcases, such as Little India Arcade or Malay Village, are privately developed but have the strong backing of the state. Haw Par Villa, in contrast, was developed by private individuals on their own. In sum, the local identity and distinctiveness of Haw Par Villa is in its “Chineseness” and in the fact that it is a landscape belonging to the people. Unfortunately, this particularity or local distinctiveness has been erased somewhat since the refurbishment program began.

Dragon World

In a matter of 2 years (1988-90), Tiger Balm Gardens was transformed into a theme park, Dragon World. Purposely made over as a new landscape of consumption offering “enough to do the whole day” (Business Times 1990), Dragon World was marketed on the combined strengths of its Chinese cultural theme and technological wizardry. To what extent was this commodity package captivating in the eyes of local and tourism consumers? In the case of Dragon World, the tourism experience clearly reflected this absorption. Almost three- quarters (73%) of the tourists identified the new but imposing mythological Dragon as the key feature of the park (Figure 4). Far less imposing, but nevertheless mentioned occasionally, were the statues and tableaux depicting Chinese culture and mythology (mentioned by 9% of the tourists) and the gory scenes depicted in the Ten Courts of Hell boat ride (9%). Also mentioned was the staged authenticity inherent in the live performances in which “gods, goddesses, and

TEO AND YEOH 205

Figure 4. The Dragon which has Overtaken the Tiger as the Ruling Icon

nymphs” acted out rewritten clips of Chinese legends and myths (6%). In contrast, original parts of the park such as the main archway (only 3% mentioned this) and the signature pond (nil response from tourists) were lost on the tourists who only sought to fulfill their expectations of the landscape.

Local visitors were also not immune to the all-invading per- vasiveness of the 60 meter Dragon in popular imaginations. Almost two-thirds (59%) of local respondents also considered the Dragon to be the key feature of the park and, although a minority mentioned the original archway (19%), the statues and tableaux (13%), the Aw signature pond (3%), the live performances (3%), and the Flume Ride (3%), none singled out the Tiger, the original symbol of Haw Par Villa. Not only has Dragon World replaced Tiger Balm Gardens in a material sense, the Dragon had also replaced the Tiger as the ruling icon.

While the majority of both tourists and locals alike considered the new Haw Par Villa to be part of Singapore’s heritage (63% and 84%, respectively), the reasons they gave for this are instructive. Among tourists, the majority (70%) defined this in terms of the Chinese theme (Table 2). It did not seem to matter to them that “the place smacked of Americana” whereby an “American robot, dressed as an old Chinese man yakk[ed] away about Legends and Heroes [with an] American accent...to the beat of some American-composed music” (The Straits Times 199Oc). Locals, in contrast, defined the heritage value of the park in terms of the “legacy left by the Aw brothers” or a landscape that has “been around a long time” (66%) (Table 2). Tourists, thus, sought authenticity in the unifying Chinese theme of the park while local respondents found it in the lived experiences of

206 REIEAJSING LOCAL HERITAGE

Table 4. Number of Respondents and their Reasons for Considering Dragon World to be Part of Singapore’s Heritage

Responses Tourists Locals

Number % Number %”

Is Dragon World part of Singapore’s heritage?: Yes No Total

Reasons for “Yes, it is Singapore’s heritage”: Park Informs about Chinese History/Culture to

which the Majority of Singaporeans Belong Historical Legacy Left by the Aw Brothers The Park has been Around a Long Time Total

Reasons for “No, it is not Singapore’s heritage”: Dragon World only Conveys Chinese Heritage,

what about the other Ethnic Groups? Dragon World is just Another Tourism

Attraction Singaporeans are not Aware of who the Aw

Brothers are Total

20 63 27 84 12 37 5 16 32 100 32 100

14 70 9 34 3 15 9 33 3 15 9 33

20 100 27 100

10 84 2 40

1 8 2 40

1 8 1 20 12 100 5 100

aPercentages have been rounded off.

their past. As Britton observed, having been persuaded to buy a particular commodity package, tourists are conditioned to look for qualities associated with a certain “cultural model” rather than the place’s own authenticity or the reality of the social, cultural, and historical life of which it is a part (1991:455).

Dragon World’s success formula, based on the twin principles of Chinese culture and high technology, was well received by both tourists and locals. Slightly more than one-third (35%) of the tourists singled out the thrills offered by the Flume Ride and the Ten Courts of Hell boat ride as the best that Dragon World can offer. Other technological innovations aimed at adding life to the park were also well received. Up to 18% of the tourists listed the multimedia shows and the live performances as being “the best” in Dragon World. Tourists were also so enamoured by the statues and tableaux depicting Chinese legends and myths that they described them as “unique” and “never to be found elsewhere in the world” (41%). Among locals, an even higher proportion (5 1%) enjoyed the thrill rides and substantial minorities (10% each) enjoyed the multimedia and live shows. However, 22% were attracted to the unique Chinese theme of the park and 7% still referred back to the previous Tiger Balm Gardens landscape in order to appreciate the value of the park. In general, apart from a small minority of local respondents who felt that the technological innovations “distracts one from fully appreciating Chi- nese heritage elements of the villa”, the majority of both tourists and

TEO AND YEOH 207

locals were not disconcerted by the fact that the selling of culture was bolstered by technology (and vice versa).

Consumer disatisfactions with Dragon World appear to be based not so much on a sense that the original cultural landscape of Haw Par Villa had been eroded as on the practical shortcomings of the theme park. Negative images were mainly the result of dissatisfaction with the theme park attractions. Nearly 14% of tourists and local respondents alike complained that the multimedia shows were not rotated or that the attractions were not open at the time of visit (14% for the tourists and 9% for the locals). Nearly 11% of tourists and 17% of local respondents complained that entrance fees were too high. Poor signage, a lack of shelter, poor maintenance, and level of service also featured in the complaints of both tourists and locals (Table 3). The lack of satisfaction seemed to center on fact that the expectations of Dragon World were invariably compared to those of an international theme park of high quality like Disneyland. The need to pay also raised expectations about what the park had to offer or, more aptly, what it seemed not to have delivered, especially in the opinion of local respondents.

Dragon World was, in the main, a tourism attraction to most visitors (91% tourists and 88% of locals). The Chinese folklore and legends which abound in the park were considered particularly appealing to the tourist gaze (86%). The remaining 14% suggested that, since Singapore has so few attractions to begin with, Dragon World with its color and technological wizardry appealed to them. Dragon World’s success as a manicured tourism landscape which caters to tourists’ desire to see and experience something “different” in the east, has to some extent influenced local perception of the villa as well. Some

Table 3. What Respondents Liked Least about Dragon World

Responses Tourists Locals

Number %” Number %”

Multimedia Shows are not Rotated/Always the 5 14 5 14 Same Shows

Several Attractions were Closed 5 14 3 9 Park Lacks Shelter/Too Hot 4 11 4 11 Poor Signage 4 11 3 9 Admission Fee is too High 4 11 6 17 Too Few Attractions to be Called a Theme Park 3 9 Place is Poorly Maintained 3 9 1 3 Boat Ride through Ten Courts of Hell is too Fast 2 6 5 14 Statues are Artificial 2 6 -- Not Enough Food and Drink Outlets 2 6 Poor Service 1 3 4 11 Too Built-up and Crowded - 2 6 International Corners are Out of Place - - 1 3 Statues are too Grotesque and Ugly - - 1 3 Total 35b 100 35b 100

‘Percentages have been rounded off. “More than 1 answer may be given by each respondent.


23% of local respondents described the park as “fascinating”, “awe- inspiring”, and “exciting” because of its many new attractions, namely, the boat rides and live performances. The park was also described as being “vibrant” in color with a modern and “fresh out- look” (11%). The dragon captured many an imagination (6%). The educational value for children and adults (10%) is, however, still present. Negative images were also couched in terms of Dragon World’s shortcomings as a theme park. Some described it as too small and not having enough attractions compared to other theme parks, making it a “poor cousin” or not living up to the promises alluded to in the promotional pamphlets (29%). For a significant proportion (21%), however, negative impressions of the park stem from a comparison of the old Tiger Balm Gardens with the theme park, centering on the view that the heritage and culture of the old gardens have been adulterated for the tourist gaze. For this group, the enchantment of the new, its simulations and spectacularity, has not completely erased the old, nor has it compensated for the loss of the original. They felt that the collaborative representation of Haw Par Villa by the state and private enterprise was not faithful to the historical value of the place. The gardens were once free, uncrowded, and uncluttered. It was a place to learn moral lessons as well as one which exemplified a philanthropic tradition of a rich family. It was enjoyed by all Sin- gaporeans, regardless of class or ethnicity. Now, its value resides in being a place where “foreigners who would like to see Chinese history, culture and folklore” can come. To those who preferred the old Haw Par Villa, they would have liked it to be “like in the olden days” (i.e., unchanged, minus interactive robots and high-speed thrill rides).

The mixed impressions given by the locals indicate that Dragon World straddles two sets of experiences: on the one hand, there are those who value and cling to the personal memories of the old villa; on the other, there are those enthralled by the consumption culture engendered by modern-day capitalism that can best be described as “mass” and “homogenizing...following the American pivot of consumption” (Thrift and Glennie 1993:48). In contrast, for the tourists, the park is a one-stop visit for Chinese culture-an environmental bubble in which they can also enjoy the thrills and amusement of rides and shows. To this end, state and private enterprises were successful in their deliberate creation of an oriental version of Disneyland for tourists. The local distinctiveness of Haw Par Villa as portrayed by the Aw brothers was carefully distilled so that only the desired elements were left. It was this Chinese imagery which was sold and, judging from the reactions of the respondents, it was happily absorbed by most.

CONCLUSION

To many Singaporeans, Tiger Balm Gardens was a landscape of memories, one in which the direct experience of having used the gardens created a sense of value for them. Dragon World in contrast is a landscape of consumption. It is a place where entertainment value can be derived amid a backdrop which is unique. The value associated

TEO AND YEOH 209

with the consumption of leisure is so great that Dragon World is judged not so much by comparisons with Tiger Balm Gardens but weighed against other theme parks in Singapore which were created from scratch such as Volcano Land and Fantasy Island in Sentosa Island, as well as other international standard theme parks such as Disneyland. This comparison, however, has unfortunately become the park’s nemesis. The adventure, excitement and novelty offered by the park seems to be wearing off and the park is considered a losing venture. According to one respondent, Dragon World was a “must- see” because “we have[sic] heard so much about it”. Now that this respondent has seen and experienced it, he would not come again because “once is enough...it is too expensive”. Compared to other newer theme parks, Dragon World is “old fashioned” in terms of its technology and offers too little for the amount of money paid. It is precisely from this experience that a valuable lesson is learned. Allow- ing Western ideas to dictate what a theme park should include has permitted the global forces of capitalism to sweep over the landscape of Haw Par Villa. Only those brands of particularity which the private- public partnership believed would sell were retained. All other vestiges of authenticity were removed or pushed into the background. Yet, despite the cornmodification of Haw Par Villa, the park is falling behind other attractions in Singapore and is not considered by some travel agents to be a “must-see” attraction (The Straits Times 1995).

This fact is telling. Local agencies, namely Singaporeans, have spurned Haw Par Villa because it is too commoditized. By giving the villa limited support, local agencies have contested the image of Haw Par Villa and negotiated for a new image. Under the new General Manager of ITP, management intends to “steer the park away from the adventure rides such as they are, towards the creepy wonderland that Singaporeans remember” (The Straits Times 1994). The reversal back to the Tiger Balm Gardens that Singaporeans knew and appreciated is indicative of a rising awareness among Singaporeans of their own heritage (Yeoh and Kong 1995) which is appreciated for its own sake and not necessarily for commercial reasons, least of all for tourism (Teo and Huang 1995). As a first step in this new awakening, “Dragon World” will be dropped in favor of the “original Tiger Balm Gardens” or “The park that Aw built” (Legends 1995:1-Z). Also in the pipeline is a film on the history of the Aw family. Many of the more eccentric animal tableaux will similarly be reinstated (e.g. the gorillas, the kangaroos, polar bears, and hippopotamus). In other words, the idiosyncratic landscape that Aw Boon Haw created will come alive again. The Ten Courts of Hell, so well-known during the time of Tiger Balm Gardens, will be dismantled for a walk-through the “way most Singaporeans remember it” (Business Times 1995; The Straits Times 1995).

By highlighting what is perceived to be the more authentic aspects of Haw Par Villa, the park seems to have come a full circle. The need for tourism planning to be sensitive to place history and culture is indicated by the reversal in Haw Par Villa’s planning history. The way it was remembered as heritage and valued by Singaporeans who lived through it in their childhood could not be totally erased by private


enterprise or the state in the name of profit. Fortunately, private enterprise had the foresight to retain the Chinese focus which Peter Hulm (ITP General Manager) says “no-one has yet thanked...for rescuing this part of Singapore’s history” (The Straits Times 1994). It was the Americanizing/Disneyfication of the park which failed. Putting Tiger Balm Gardens back into Haw Par Villa attempts to remove the spectacle in Dragon World and reinstate the original lived culture which made the park to begin with. Hulm’s final statement on Haw Par Villa is to bring “you back to see an old friend” (Legends 1995:8). In this instance, tourism is being used to reinforce the heritage of the local landscape while meeting the economic goal of pro- fitmaking, so highly prized by private enterprise and the state.

This paper clearly reveals that the showcasing of culture and history can create antagonisms, especially if it is left completely in the hands of marketeers to decide what to represent. Local forces are important and can temper market forces from obliterating deliberately or acci- dentally the heritage and culture of a place. The need to appreciate the local histories and memories of ordinary people who live, work, and use a place must become a reality for there to be a workable global-local nexus to prevent further insensitive cornmodification of places for the sake of tourism. In the light of Urry’s claim that postmodern tourists prefer to gaze upon the distinct, celebrating differences of the “vernacular” (1990:127) is the best path for urban and tourism planners who subscribe to using tourism as an income earner. 0 0

REFERENCES

Ashworth, G. J. 1993 Culture and Tourism: Conflict or Symbiosis in Europe? In Tourism in Europe:

Structures and Developments, W. Pomp1 and P. Lavery, eds., pp. 13-35. Wall- ingford: CAB International.

Ashworth, G. J., and J. E. Tunbridge 1990 The Tourist-Historic City. London: Belhaven.

Bianchini, F., and H. Schwengel 1991 Re-imagining the City. In Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National

Culture, J. Corner and S. Harvey, eds., pp. 212-234. London: Routledge. Boniface, P., and P. J. Fowler

1993 Heritage and Tourism in “The Global Village”. London: Routledge. Bramham, P., I. Henry, H. Mommaas and H. van der Poel, eds.

1989 Leisure and Urban Processes: Critical Studies of Leisure Policy in West European Cities. London: Routledge.

Britton, S. 1991 Tourism, Capital, and Place: Towards a Critical Geography. Environment

and Planning D 9:45 l-478. Business Times, Singapore

1985 Haw Par Villa to Have High-tech Entertainment. Business Times (September 5):16.

1986 Coming in Two Years: World’s Only Chinese Mythological Theme Park. Business Times (April 29):2.

1990 A Sleeping Beauty Awakens. Business Times (July 2 1): 1. 1995 Haw Par Villa Takes Bold Steps to Boost Crowds. Business Times (April 26).

Chang, T. C., S. Milne, D. Fallon and C. Pohlmann 1996 Urban Heritage Tourism: Exploring the Global-Local Nexus. Annals of Tour-

ism Research 23:284-305.

TEO AND YEOH 211

Cloke, P., ed. 1992 Policy and Planning in Thatcher’s Britain. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Cohen, E. 1988 Authenticity and Commoditisation in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research

15:371-386. Corner, J., and S. Harvey

1991 Mediating Tradition and Modernity: The Heritage/Enterprise Couplet. In Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture, J. Corner and S. Harvey, eds., pp. 45-75. London: Routledge.

Crick, M. 1994 Resplendent Sites, Discordant Voices: Sri Lankans and International Tourism.

Switzerland: Harwood Academic. Datel, R., and D. Dingemans

1988 Why Places are Preserved: Historic Districts in American and European Cities. Urban Geography 9:37-52.

Department of Statistics 1990 Singapore Census of Population: Demographic Characteristics. Statistical

Release No. 1. Singapore: Department of Statistics. Duncan, S. S., and M. Goodwin

1985 Local Economic Policies: Local Regeneration or Political Mobilisation. Local Government Studies 11:75-96.

1988 The Local State and Uneven Development. Cambridge MA: Polity Press. Fraser and Neave

1990 Annual Report. Singapore: Fraser and Neave. Frieden, B., and L. Sagalyn

1989 Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Goodwin, M.

1993 The City as Commodity: The Contested Places of Urban Development. In Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, G. Kearns and C. Philo, eds., pp. 145-162. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Harvey, D. 1990 The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hewison, R. 1987 The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen.

Jackson, P. 1989 Maps ofMeaning: An Introduction to Cultural Geography. Boston MA: Unwin

Hyman. Kearns, G.

1993 The City as Spectacle: Paris and the Bicentenary of the French Revolution. In Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, G. Kearns and C. Philo, eds., pp. 49-101. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

King, S. 1992 Tiger Balm King: The Life and Times of Aw Boon Haw. Singapore: Times

Editions. Law, C. M.

1993 Urban Tourism: Attracting Visitors to Large Cities. London: Mansell. Legends

1995 Legends: The Newsletter from Haw Par Villa. Singapore: Haw Par Villa. Ley, D.

1989 Modernism, Post-Modernism and the Struggle for Place. In The Power of Place: Bringing Together Geographical and Sociological Imagination, J. Agnew and J. Duncan, eds., pp. 44-65. Boston MA: Unwin Hyman.

Lowe, M. 1993 Local Hero! An Examination of the Role of the Regional Entrepreneur in the

Regeneration of Britain’s Regions. In Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capi- tal, Past and Present, G. Kearns and C. Philo, eds., pp. 21 l-230. Oxford: Per- eamon Press.

Lowe”nthal, D. 1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MacCannell. D. 1976 The ‘Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Macmillan.

Massey, D.


1993 A Global Sense of Place. In Studying Culture, A. Gray and J. McGuigan, eds., DD. 232-240. London: Edward Arnold

1984 Report of the Tourism Task Force. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Industry. 1986 Tourism Product Development Plan. Singapore: Ministry of Trade and Indus-

try. Philo, C., and G. Kearns

1993 Culture, History, Capital: A Critical Introduction to the Selling of Places. In Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, G. Kearns and C. Philo, eds., pp. l-32. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Relph, E. 1976 Place and Placelessness. London: Pion Ltd.

Robins, K. 1991 Tradition and Translation: National Culture in its Global Context. In Enter-

prise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture, J. Corner and S. Harvey, eds., pp. 21-44. London: Routledge. __

Rowles, G. D. 1978 Prisoners of Space: Exploring the Geographical Experience of Older People.

Boulder CO: Westview Press. 1983 Place and Personal Identity in Old Age: Observations from Appalachia.

Journal of Environmental Psychology 3:299-3 13. Sharpley, R.

1994. Tourism, Tourists and Society. Huntingdon: ELM Publications. Shaw, G.

1992 Culture and Tourism: The Economics of Nostalgia. World Futures 33:199- 212.

Shaw, G., and A. M. Williams 1994 Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sorkin. M., ed. 1992 Variations on a Theme Park. New York: Noonday Press.

Squire, S. 1993 Valuing Countryside: Reflections on Beatrix Potter Tourism. Area 255-10.

STPB 1989 Annual Statistical Report on Visitor Arrivals to Singapore 1989. Singapore:

Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. 1990 Annual Statistical Report on Visitor Arrivals to Singapore 1990. Singapore:

Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. 1993/94 Annual Report. Singapore: Singapore Tourist Promotion Board.

Teo, P., and S. Huang 1995 Tourism and Heritage Conservation in Singapore. Annals of Tourism

Research 22:589-615. The Straits Times

1980 Haw Par Villa Plans Runs into a Snag. The Straits Times (April 19): 13. 1985 Haw Par Villa To Get a Facelift. The Straits Times (March 16):l. 1986a Haw Par Villa Goes Hi-tech. The Straits Times (April 30):26. 1986b SPH Takes 25% Stake in $30m Venture to Redevelop Tiger Balm Gardens:

F&N to Revamp the Villa. The Straits Times (April 29):l. 1986~ Give High-tech Haw Par Villa Theme Park a Chance: It Could Boost Tour-

ism. The Straits Times (August 23): 16. 1986d Snake Men Miss their Old Haunt at Haw Par Villa. The Straits Times

(November 2 1):22. 1990a Haw Par Attractions Taking Shape for September Opening. The Straits

Times (May 6):16. 1990b The Saga Behind the Villa. The Straits Times (September 20):3. 199Oc This Dragon Breathes Money. The Straits Times (October 20):3. 1994 Can He Make the Monkey Dance? The Straits Times (December 25). 1995 $6 Million Revamp for Haw Par Villa. The Straits Times (April 26).

Thrift, N., and P. Glennie 1993 Historical Geographies of Urban Life and Modern Consumption. In Selling

Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, G. Kearns and C. Philo, eds., pp. 32-48. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Townsend, D.

TEO AND YEOH 213

1992 The Attractions of Urban Areas. Tourism and Recreation Research 7:24-32. Tunbridge, J.

1984 Whose Heritage to Conserve: Cross-cultural Reflections on Political Domi- nance. Canadian Geographer 26: 17 l-180.

Urry, J. 1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London:

Sage. Yale, P.

1991 From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. Huntingdon: ELM Publi- cations.

Yeoh, B. S. A., and L. Kong, eds. 1995 Portraits of Places: History, Community and Identity in Singapore. Singapore:

Times Editions. Zukin, S.

1991 Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Submitted 17 November 1995 Resubmitted 19 February 1996 Accepted 6 March 1996 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Geoffrey Wall