NM 4212: Media and Representation

UNIQUELY SINGAPORE:

Misrepresentations of the Singapore Identity

Prepared by:

CHANTHIRASEKAR S/O KALIMUTHU U040135L

CHUA TIONG KENG U040432W
GANESAN S/O SELVARATHNAM U040114H
LEE JIAN HUI U041540L
LEE WEN WEI KENNETH U040153E
SIM ZHI WEI U040140Y
INTRODUCTION

Tourism has often been a foremost foundation of a country’s attraction to the external

world. It is one of the main motivators driving the identity edifice of a country. The episteme of

tourism carries with it a strong set of political and economic imperatives that get represented in

various forms. Such representations are, more often than not, deeply entwined with representation

conjectures and power discourses. In the process, such representations will be subjected to

contestations and thus may be perceived as misrepresentations. This is because all representations

do not have an absolute truth. Usually, the dominant readings of representations are met with

resistance because they are void of dynamics which may be essential to others who are also

implicated via the same representations. The void may be deliberate, or accidental, depending on

the agenda that the representations are supposed to be achieved. This paper ventures into the

Singapore Precedent, projecting a systemic analysis and breakdown of the Singapore Tourism

Board’s representations in Uniquely Singapore tourism campaign.

AIM

This paper seeks to highlight the misrepresentation in the representations of the Singapore

identity1 as depicted by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) in its Uniquely Singapore tourism

campaign as it strives to project a singular unique image of Singapore to attract tourists from the

world over. In doing so, their textual reproduction of what is considered to be Singaporean,

through the various marketing mediums, seem to have ignored the true forms of representing that

very idea.

1
In this paper, the terms ‘Singapore identity’ and ‘Singaporean identity’ will be used inter-changeably – they are
essentially utilised to refer to the identity that Singaporeans identify with.

-1-
BRIEF METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

This section will lay out the framework within which this paper will address the stated aim.

In setting the parameters for this paper, some essential tools are adopted to critique the

representations of the Singapore identity in STB’s Uniquely Singapore campaign.

Stuart Hall argues that distinct reading positions emerge when interpreting any form of text.

As such, there are several levels of meanings constructed within the various representations. The

reading positions that Hall suggests are namely the “dominant,” “oppositional” and “negotiated”

reading positions (Hall, 1997). Dominant reading refers to how representations within Uniquely

Singapore are intended to have one particular preferred reading of it. Oppositional reading refers to

alternate representations that may be unconsciously, or otherwise, left out; but they carry their own

set of signifieds that validates a good critique of the preferred reading. It is the alternate opinions

and dynamics that will form the crux of the analysis of the misrepresentations in the portrayals of

Uniquely Singapore’s version of Singapore identity.

In addition to this, Roland Barthes propounds that every representation, in whatever form,

will have a denotative and connotative meaning. This meaning now taking the form as a signifier,

will then lead to another set of signifieds, which results in the generation of myths (Hall, 1997).

Uniquely Singapore, being a tourist campaign, inevitably conjures myths – tells stories. This form

of story telling only tells what is supposed to be revealed as determined by various factors

influencing the narration. Such myths in Uniquely Singapore, include presenting Singapore, as they

are in the various marketing forms, as a city that is most attractive to tourists and accurate to

Singaporeans.

Another tool to understand representations of texts will be Michel Foucault’s concept of

discourse. Foucault argues that discourse “constructs the topic” and determines how a topic can be

“meaningfully talked about” (Hall, 1997). Furthermore, tourism is a spatial phenomenon and hence

it has to be discerned only within larger readings of countries and boundary markers (Pearce, 1995;

-2-
Shaw and Williams 2004). Discourses then help to frame this spatial phenomenon and the

ideologies that govern the representations in tourism campaigns of countries. Discourses, in the

context of tourism campaigns in Singapore, play a very crucial role in interpreting the various

political, social and economical ideologies sustaining the chosen portrayals of Singapore and what

it means to be Singaporean. These discourses are not only local, there are international discourses

which have to be analysed and then subsequently used to situate Uniquely Singapore in. It is only

by doing this that our group attempts to go beyond picking out the mere misrepresentations but to

understand the discourses that motivate these (mis)representations.

It is of significance to note that the analytical tools listed here are not exhaustive. The

above-mentioned tools merely set the parameters within which majority of the analyses in this

paper is situated. Necessary tools to facilitate more in-depth analyses will be employed as the paper

delves further into the topic that is being contested. These tools and conceptual ideas will be

borrowed from scholars who have written extensively on tourism in Singapore especially.

THE EVOLUTION OF TOURISM CAMPAIGNS OF SINGAPORE

The STB, previously known as the Singapore Tourism Promotion Board (STPB), is in

charge of all tourism related matters in Singapore. Since the 1960s, it has catered to the different

concerns and hence, the different objectives of that period. It was also responsible for the

formulation of the Tourism 21 master-plan and other plans that charted the future directions for the

Singapore tourism sector.

STB’s Uniquely Singapore tourism campaign was launched on 9 March 2004. According to

Mr. Lim Neo Chian, Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive of STB, Uniquely Singapore is a “new,

impactful and compelling brand that reflects the new changes and essence of Singapore's unique

strengths and offerings” (AsiaTravelTips, 2004). The official launch of this campaign follows the

-3-
recent accolade that Singapore witnessed a record of 6.1 million visitors into Singapore. This

campaign is the fourth in line after a series of different preceding ones since the 1960s.

The three campaigns that preceded Uniquely Singapore are namely, Instant Asia (from

1960-1970), Surprising Singapore (1980s), New Asia – Singapore (1990s) [Appendix C]. Each of

these campaigns was founded upon different needs of Singapore’s tourism market at those

particular points in time. Different time frames required different forms of marketing and thus

different representations of Singapore. Specifically, each of this campaign was motivated by

economic and social goals (Chang & Yeoh, 1999). Butler (1980) argues that any tourist area will

eventually lead to stagnation. In order to delay, or even avoid it, the STB’s campaigns collectively

evolve according to times. Hence, the campaigns have to be understood within this larger

framework so as to understand how they actually fall on a continuum rather than exist as

independent entities. In so doing, we can also understand how planners had leveraged on their own

“geographical imaginations” to decide what the most ideal representation for Singapore is (Butler,

R 1980). The economic goal that underlines Instant Asia is to lure Western tourists and

investments. The quote below posits Singapore as a “One-stop Asia”:

“A visit to Singapore offers an insight into the land and people of Asia…

n ideal holiday for tourists from the West with neither time nor the

money for extended travel… goes home with the feeling that he has met

the people and experienced the cultures of Asia.”

- STPB (1966)

From here, we can see that Singapore already had ambitious plans in those days to attract tourist

dollars especially to help a frugal economy after independence in 1965.

There was also a social goal inherent in this campaign. The stability of the newly-

independent Singapore was a huge question mark. Especially after the Maria Hertogh racial riots in

1963, there was an impending need to unite all the races together. Such politics of survival was

-4-
achieved through the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others) model through which the Chinese

majority was downplayed. By representing Singapore as multi-racial to tourists, the locals were

also naturalised into accepting that all races are equal. In that sense, this campaign served as a self-

fulfilling prophecy which did come true for Singapore. (Chang, 1997)

Instant Asia is a representation that projects Singapore as a multi-cultural ideal to the world

where an array of Asian cultures, peoples, festivals and cuisine conveniently exhibited in a single

destination (Chang, 1997). This was done seemingly to seek some form of global recognition; once

achieved, the ideal would become one that locals strive for. Likewise, there were also economic

and socio-political motivations in the subsequent campaigns.

In Surprising Singapore, Singapore was positioned through the placement of contrasting

images of modernity and Asian exoticism together, stressing on the co-existence of the East and

West, and of the old and new (Chang, 1997; Leong, 1997). However, the economic goal still

remained the bedrock of STB’s tourism campaigns. Tourism had already been recognised as an

important revenue generator for the Singapore economy especially since it was still in the early

days of an export-oriented economy. However, the socio-political goal of achieving multi-racialism

was developed into a socio-cultural goal – Singapore was mooted as a land of opportunities.

The New Asia – Singapore campaign was the third in line. It should be noted that there was

a slight shift in focus in the transition from Surprising Singapore to New Asia – Singapore. While

the former guaranteed unanticipated differentiated and distinctive cultures in a modern city, the

latter proffered ethnic cultures merged into modern development. Figuratively speaking, Surprising

Singapore depicted a “salad mix” of a variety of ethnic cultures in a modern environment; New

Asia – Singapore portrayed Singapore as a “melting pot” of both Eastern and Western cultures

(Ooi, 2004a). By this time, Singapore had already achieved remarkable economic growth. Its

prosperity had been enormous – achieved in record time – since getting independence. The

economic goal then was for Singapore to become a tourism capital in Asia. Also, the social vision

-5-
then was to project Singaporeans as forward-thinking Asians. By the time of this campaign, there

were several representations that existed. Undeniably, there were several representations that also

existed earlier, embodied in the form of contestations to a particular form of representation. They

were not as manifested as in the present-day context which can be seen by the number of literature

review. The major factor was an impending need to ensure political and economical stability in a

newly independent country. Having reached rapid development and a better educated population,

misrepresentations seem to be proliferated in more recent times. As a result, we see more

pronounced alternate forms of representations emerging. These struggles continued into the

Uniquely Singapore campaign as well and will be elaborated in the subsequent sections of this

paper. It is these struggles that our group is also most familiar with as we had grown up during this

campaign times.

Singapore’s tourism was most crucial in boosting its economy. However, there were a lot of

external factors, regional and otherwise, acting on the development of tourism in Singapore. Such

international and regional discourses were pivotal in determining the future directions for

Singapore’ tourism. As such, the discursive forces have to be acknowledged for a critical

understanding of the evolution of Singapore’s tourism campaigns, and especially to identify the

reasons behind the misrepresentations in Uniquely Singapore as will be explored later.

Around the period of 1960s, there was an increasing emphasis on international tourism that

Singapore cannot afford to ignore - international tourism emerged as the largest single item in

world trade (Peters, 1969). If not for the plummeting of oil prices in the 1970s, tourism would have

still remained numero uno. International tourism also saw rapid increase in terms of tourist

numbers into Southeast Asia – the growth was 13.5% between 1974 and 1975. Around the same

period of time, Singapore’s tourist arrivals went up from 90,000 to 1.3 million. Also, tourist

spending in Asia and Australasia “between 1965 and 1975 increased from $484 million to $4.5

-6-
billion” (Wood, 1980). Such international and regional trends also had spin-off effects for

Singapore.

Tourism in Southeast Asia predominantly differentiates itself from other regions of the

world through an over-emphasis on its local cultures. Hence, the major form of tourism in

Southeast Asia is mostly cultural, often branded in the name of heritage, in which nations

continually ‘export’ its unique cultures to tourists. Export, in this context, refers to how it sells

experience to the tourists in the country.

Such export of cultures is an example of Stuart Halls’ Other. Southeast Asia was a region

seen by the West to be underdeveloped and hence, often cited as the Orient. In tourism context, this

stereotype emerged as a competitive advantage to Southeast Asia. By marketing its cultures as

unique in the world, Southeast Asian countries took pride in being the Other to the West. Such

‘Other’ has become naturalised to this region and is played up to highlight the exoticness of the

Asian region.

A tourist has a general trend to cover the Orient more than any single country in depth. In

the process of doing so, the tendency is to cover internationally recognised tourist spots. This

psychology works well for Southeast Asia collectively. A tourist who comes to Southeast Asia will

try to visit every country in the region despite the attractions being unchanged for a long time

(Wood, 1980). Southeast Asia was battling domestic issues in the 1960s and could not afford to

revamp the tourist sites; however, this psyche of the tourist to this region helped the industry to

grow. It was a win-win situation for Southeast Asia.

While tracing the evolution of tourism campaigns in Singapore, it is important to note the

underlying post-colonial discourse throughout. There is always a modelling of best practices in the

West. From projecting a multi-cultural representation in the 1960s to projecting Singaporeans as

forward-thinking in the 1990s, there is a constant need to emulate the West in any way possible. In

the larger Southeast Asian context, the ‘West is best’ mentality is most evident in that there exists

-7-
an assumption that accommodations must meet Western standards as an indicator of a spread of

tourism (Wood, 1980). Such post-colonial discourses and the emphasis placed on the export of

cultural tourism shifts the hierarchy of power and the role of the state especially. In turn, the nexus

between tourism and world, regional and national economy is also changing.

PROBLEMS WITH UNIQUELY SINGAPORE

The slogan ‘Uniquely Singapore’ was coined with the intention to project the nation as a

“dynamic city in contrast and colour where you find a blend of culture, cuisine, arts and

architecture” (STB, 1998). In making the transition from New Asia – Singapore to Uniquely

Singapore, STB recognised that there was a need to “be compelling, differentiating and bold to

allow Singapore to differentiate itself from other destinations” (STB, 2004). In accordance to this

recognition, STB again switched its focus slightly, choosing to now emphasise on the best of Asian

exoticism and global modernity (Ooi, 2006). This resulted in Uniquely Singapore needing to be

“credible based on the tangible intrinsic features of Singapore; inspiring for the STB, industry

partners and Singaporeans; and overarching to align the Board’s and the tourism industry’s core

messages into one voice” (STB, 2004)..

However, STB plans to do more with Uniquely Singapore than just promoting Singapore to

the rest of the world. They also hope to make Singaporeans cognisant of the many “simple, yet

distinctive elements of their daily lives that can constitute enriching and interesting experiences for

visitors” (STB, 2004). Through this, STB hopes that “Singaporeans can then become natural

tourism ambassadors for their visiting friends and relatives” (STB, 2004).

From the objectives that STB aims to achieve with Uniquely Singapore, it can be inferred

that STB is essentially adopting a two-pronged approach – to be attractive to tourists and accurate

to Singaporeans through persistent representations of the campaign as a leading global city. Here,

one can notice an inherent contradiction surfacing in that STB is trying to realise two apparently

-8-
differing goals. By adopting such an approach, STB is inevitably faced with an either-or situation

as it can only attain one of the two goals. In choosing to present itself as a leading global city, it has

somehow alienated a segment of the very people that they are targeting – Singapore citizens –

causing them to be unable to identify with the campaign. As a result, STB is unable to accomplish

its stated targets. Such an inability is characteristic of how effectively STB has misrepresented

Singapore in its various media platforms. The misrepresentations are also a result of how tourism

campaigns seem to be primarily tailoring itself to international tourism markets and local

economical growth instead of genuinely allowing Singaporeans to identify with it. To elaborate,

Tourism 21’s master-plans are heavily dominated by international market potential and how it can

aid our economy. Our group would not be too wrong then to posit that STB is moneytizing

Singaporeans by wanting them to become ambassadors for tourists - Singaporeans are then mere

marketing tools for STB. Coupled with the constant emphasis on trying to get Singaporeans to

identify with Uniquely Singapore, we feel STB has deliberately not yet found a best way to do it.

This is so that STB can continually get Singaporeans to play their part by trying to engage with the

campaigns and thus serve as tools that the former can employ to market Uniquely Singapore.

This view of Uniquely Singapore alienating Singapore citizens is proven in a thesis by

Leong (Leong, 2006). As part of his research, he conducted a survey among both tourists and

Singapore citizens to gather a “ground response” toward Uniquely Singapore (Leong, 2006).

Through the survey, it was found that more than half of the Singaporean citizens surveyed

disagreed that Uniquely Singapore is an accurate description of Singapore as a tourist destination

(Leong, 2006). Similarly a majority of the tourists surveyed shared the same adverse opinions

(Leong, 2006). In his work, Leong has shown that the positioning of Uniquely Singapore has not

been well-received amongst both tourists and Singapore citizens alike. He attributes this “mainly to

the campaign’s failure to be credible, deliverable and relevant enough for both tourists and locals”

(Leong, 2006).

-9-
 Delving deeper into the interpretations that people have of Uniquely Singapore, Leong

found that most Singapore citizens interpreted “uniqueness” as “Singapore is unique because the

Singaporean culture and lifestyle is one of a kind” (Leong, 2006). From the perspective of tourists,

it was found that most interpreted ‘uniqueness’ as “Singapore is unique because of its multi-

cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious makeup” (Leong, 2006).

From these findings, it can be seen that both tourists and Singapore citizens interpret the

‘uniqueness’ of Singapore to be attributes of the nation that are very much Singaporean through

and through. As such, there is a need for STB to depict truly Singaporean traits for its Uniquely

Singapore campaign to be in line with its objectives and even the campaign’s slogan for that matter.

This necessitates a Singapore identity to be defined and understood.

WHAT IS THE SINGAPORE(AN) IDENTITY?

Before proceeding to analyse and critique Uniquely Singapore with respect to it

misrepresenting the uniqueness of Singapore, there is first a need to grasp an understanding of the

factors that constitute the Singapore(an) identity. Identity is not something that is rigid. It is very

fluid. Yet, there are always constant attempts to identify ourselves. Such identity is also part of a

larger socio-political process. This is premised upon Hall’s argument that “difference matters

because it is essential to meaning; without it, meaning could not exist” (Hall, 1997). In Singapore’s

context, according to different time periods, there is always changing notions of what the

Singapore identity is supposed to be.

Since the separation of Singapore from the Malaysian Federation in 1965, there has been a

perennial need to define a Singapore identity. This was recognised by the leaders of Singapore then

and was at the forefront on their immediate agenda. In fact, the intricate construction of a singular

Singapore identity since its “rude thrust into independence” has been paramount ever since (Hill &

Lian, 2005). This very fixation of constructing the Singapore identity was underscored in a

- 10 -
commentary in The Straits Times which stated that “it is difficult to find any other nation-state

more committed to the project of nation-building and building national identity”(Latif, 1997). The

demands of creating a nation of “one people” belonging to “one place”, and the necessary

bureaucratic plans to establish political legitimacy, build ideological consensus, regulate its

industrial workforce and shape the consciousness of its new citizens have all been essential in the

development of key state policies that presides over the various facets of social and political life in

Singapore (Yeow & Wilis, 1997).

In addition to these problems of constructing the Singapore identity, as the nation gears

toward becoming a global city, it has to negotiate new challenges in the construction process.

These new challenges stem from the need now to project Singapore as a global city that still

possesses, in the words of then-Prime Minister Goh Cheok Tong, the “heartware of Singapore”.

These very qualities refer to “our love for the country, our rootedness and our sense of community

and nationhood” (Fernandez, 1997). But why is it that the identity of Singapore must be one that is

state-oriented? However, since it is state oriented, one important thing has to be noted here. There

is never a single identity that our government tries to define as they claim that Singaporeans have

to learn to change to different times. The same Lee Kuan Yew who fought for a common identity

as Prime Minister of Singapore has this to say when he is Minister Mentor: "We have not forced or

pressure-cooked a national identity. We aimed for integration, not assimilation" (Richardson, 2001).

If it is integration and not assimilation, how then does STB aim to cater any representations to

Singaporeans since they are only sums of parts put together and not a complete whole? The

assumption underlying STB’s representation is that the idea of Singaporean is homogeneous but

there are clear-cut signs that we are not, and may never be, homogeneous Singaporeans. This then

leaves our group to judge what it means to be Singaporean from the close to three decades of lived

experience in Singapore.

- 11 -
 With respect to these qualities, it can be seen that the Singapore identity should be anchored

on attributes that have historical linkages in the formation of Singapore as a nation. This view is in

opposition to the current representations of Singapore as a global city, as seen in existing Uniquely

Singapore marketing mediums. The current representations has less historical background and are

more of a projection into the future of what Singapore is hoping to become (Appendix D). Often,

we look back to the past and its experiences to have a sense of collective identity rather than to be

futuristic.

Accordingly, the Singapore identity must therefore encompass the various elements of the

heritage of the nation which is symbolic of the times that we have battled and emerged at where we

are today. Some examples include what, once again as defined by the leaders of Singapore, then-

PM Goh had include the tenets of “heartlands” and “heartlanders”(Appendix E & F). Though broad

in nature, such a definition of the Singapore identity is able to resonate with people as shown by

Leong’s study where tourists and Singapore citizens interpret the ‘uniqueness’ of Singapore to be

traits very much associated with the heritage of the nation (Leong, 2006).

This definition of the Singapore identity, albeit broad, will form the basis of the analyses

and critiques of Uniquely Singapore in the following section.

DISCUSSION OF THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE SINGAPORE IDENTITY IN

UNIQUELY SINGAPORE REPRESENTATIONS

Before proceeding further, it has to be emphasised that any form of representation does not

have an absolute meaning. There are different theories of representations that exist which explain

how meanings may be generated. There are three such theories; namely, the reflective, the

intentional and the constructionist theories of representations. However, whatever the theory may

be, there will inevitably be different meanings generated for the same representation. This can also

be said to be a result of different subject positions available to any forms of representation.

- 12 -
 Translating this cursory knowledge into Uniquely Singapore, one is able to recognise that

misrepresentations tend to occur because of an overbearing of one type of representation over the

other. Specifically, there has been an over reliance on the intentional approach, which is sometimes

mixed with the reflective approach. This results in the constructionist approach being neglected. As

a result, the unique aspects of Singapore that STB seeks to embody are misrepresented.

Misrepresentation can occur through two avenues – the inaccurate portrayal of a text by

inclusion or exclusion of some signifieds. We shall now proceed with some examples to illustrate

how such misrepresentations have occurred.

The ethnic quarters, as developed by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) of

Singapore, is used by STB to promote the multi-cultural and multi-racial aspects of Singapore that

marks our heritage tourism. These ethnic quarters have a rather stereotypical way of being

presented (Appendix A). Their preferred reading over all the years always seem to be the same

though the styles may have differed. Noting that both STB and URA are statutory boards, their

choice of presenting the ethnic quarters in these particular ways are subjected to misrepresentations.

It is important to observe the reactions of people after the URA had developed its

interpretation of a landscape. It is vital to explore the ground – the physical location of the

landscape – as this is where “interpretation and participation meet” (Chang & Huang, 2005). The

fact of the matter is that there exists a wide divide between planners (URA and STB) and the users

(the people) of particular localities. Without knowledge of the ground, these planning agencies fail

to understand the sense of belonging to a place felt by the people. This is indeed very true. For

example, the complexity of the Chinese community was (over)simplified by the STB’s conception

of “Chinese-ness”. Historically, Chinatown was actually divided spatially and culturally according

to the different dialect groups within the Chinese community then; these groups were mainly the

Hokkiens, the Teochews and the Cantonese (Chang & Huang, 2005). As there is much emphasis

- 13 -
on Mandarin in the STB’s definition of “Chinese-ness”, the other dialect groups’ special

association is overlooked.

In addition, in 1991, the URA mentioned that since lifestyles cannot be preserved, buildings

should be preserved instead. This brings up the issue of hardware and ‘heartware’. Hardware refers

to “a place that is for example Chinese in terms of its built environment and organized festivals and

activities”. ‘Heartware’, in turn, refers to “a local community with daily lived experiences in the

area”. Accordingly, the URA conserved the shop-houses in Chinatown as it was considered to be

the quintessential architectural form of the locality. However, increasingly, traditional family-run

businesses are being replaced by numerous Western-style offices, pubs and lounges. These are in

fact very much prevalent within the landscape presently. This was actually a concern raised by the

long-term residents in the area as they felt a great sense of “personal loss and dislocation of

community life” (Chang & Huang, 2005). In view of this, does conservation of buildings alone

preserve culture? Due to the inability of the traditional hawkers to manage the high rental costs,

they have been taken over by international food and beverage operators such as Spinelli Coffee

Company, Canadian Muffin Company and Kentucky Fried Chicken (Henderson, 1999). Thus,

Chinatown is seen to be designed to satisfy the needs of the tourism industry rather than the local

community as it is depicted as an “Orientalist caricature” based on “simplistic and exoticised

cultural conceptions” (Henderson, 1999).As a result, ethnic landscapes are seen to have undergone

a process of commodification. Commodification is a process where local societies are changed for

tourists under a consciously crafted scheme initiated by profit minded entrepreneurs and

government (Chang, 2000).

Contestations that have occurred in Chinatown are also happening in other ethnic districts

as well. A contested landscape is a site or landscape with people contesting over who have the

rightful ownership & control (Relph, 1976). Little India, for example, is a landscape for Indians.

However, there exist contestations within, especially between the many Chinese and Indian

- 14 -
vendors in the area. Edward Relph’s concept of insideness-outsideness is being depicted here

which is basically on how people feel towards a place. Insideness refers to an individual belonging

and identifying to a place while outsideness refers to an individual who is seen as a traveller and

not belonging to a particular place (Chang, 2000). While Indian vendors say that they have a right

in Little India, Chinese vendors say that they have to a right to do business here. This is an example

of ethnic criteria versus economic criteria.

Furthermore, the URA only selects a part of Little India to undergo conservation and

renovation. This is known as the core area as it contains the greatest density of Indian trades.

Besides that, this is where the distinctive characteristics of Little India are defined. Eventually, this

core area was occupied by Chinese vendors and Western shops. In actual fact, this was supposed to

be dominated by Indian vendors. An Indian Singaporean mentioned that Little India looks so

Westernized and that the Indian flavour is missing (Chang, 2000). Western shops like The Body

Shop opened up in Little India and this caused tourists to be surprised. According to these tourists,

they suggested that these Western and Chinese shops could have opened up anywhere else in

Singapore (Chang, 2000). Thus, tourists had a signified concept of Little India. A tourist mentioned

that Little India should be connected to Indians and its culture; hence it can be seen that the URA’s

intentional approach for Little India is flawed. The URA wanted to have a creative mix of Western

and Indian styled shops in Little India. In this case, it is especially important to note that there is

more than just misrepresentation emerging from an oppositional reading; the preferred reading has

actually failed to meet its direct intention (Hall,1997)..

This is also true with Geylang Serai where there are more Chinese vendors in an area that is

supposedly set aside for the Malay community in Singapore. In addition, the general manager of

the Malay village in Geylang Serai is a Chinese, Mr. Jeffrey Chan. Mr. Chan intends to submit a

proposal to renovate the area and make it into a Malay hub. However, he is not getting any

feedback from the Malay community with regards to what constitutes a Malay hub. This has raised

- 15 -
some concerns among the Malay community (Nazeer, 2008). Therefore, it can be seen that such

ethnic landscapes which are supposed to be an area for the respective ethnic groups have been

dominated by the majority race - the Chinese.

Thus far, we have identified that there are several contestations to the landscapes of the

ethnic quarters, which is indicative of how the locals engage with the representation of the

landscape and produce meanings that are ignored by the planners. The planners’ perspectives have

been met with much resistance, yet, STB continues to promote Uniquely Singapore as being

indicative of the Singapore identity. Such ignorance of the actual contestations in the landscape,

that is most definitive of it, being ignored is an example of how indigenous people are often

powerless as they lack a sense of control of how their landscape is being defined by marketers.

(Hinch, 2004)

Such misrepresentations can also be seen in the CMIO model. The preferred reading of the

ethnic landscapes, which is also the dominant reading, is not a new phenomenon. Its roots can be

traced to Instant Asia in which the CMIO model was used to play down the Chinese majority and

promote equality of the other races. However, this CMIO model assumes that the Chinese, the

Malays and the Indians are a homogeneous lot and hence by allocating one language and culture,

they will become equal. By employing Hall’s process of Othering, we can understand that the

government has stereotyped the races since 1960s such that the heterogeneity is ignored. The

CMIO model has been naturalised into the social fabric of Singapore. It is such political ideologies

which provide the fundamentals for the government and its authorities to continue with the existing

(mis)representations of the ethnic quarters.

In the earlier section which traced the evolution of the tourism campaigns in Singapore, it

was evidently highlighted that economic motives for tourism promotion in Singapore was very

strong. Doubtlessly, this motive also continues into Uniquely Singapore. For one, the ethnic

quarters that were more aggressively promoted during New Asia - Singapore were more a result of

- 16 -
a need to boost the economy rather than to promote a multi-cultural Singapore. It was

acknowledged in 1986 that Singapore has lost its oriental mystique and charm due to

modernization. Singapore was identified as a city without a soul - “the lack of colour in the

increasingly antiseptic city-state” warranted some attention (Chang & Yeoh, 1999). It was modern,

efficient and hygienic but lacked in grace and refinement (Lee, 2004). Thus, under URA’s master-

plan in 1986, conservation of the ethnic districts was a requirement as this might contribute to

Singapore’s oriental mystique and preserve its cultural heritage. These ethnic neighbourhoods were

supposed to give a sense of place and identity to the country and its citizens. They were considered

repositories of Singapore’s fast-diminishing heritage (Chang, 2000).

Though seemingly altruistic to engineer a multi-racial fabric for Singapore, there were other

economic factors that were responsible for URA’s master-plan. Firstly, “economic diversification

strategies were needed to sustain a slowdown in manufacturing sector” (Chang & Yeoh, 1999).

Furthermore, the 1985 recession saw a ministerial committee recommending “the expansion of

tourist projects” in Singapore. This economic restructuring also took place in the “wake of a sharp

3.5% fall in tourist arrivals in 1983”.

The economic motives also continue beyond the impetus to just develop ethnic enclaves.

Having understood that the ethnic quarters owes its roots to the CMIO model, it is important to

analyse how the ‘O’ category is represented. The ‘Others’ is a category that was facilitated to

maintain the homogeneity of the Chinese, the Malays and the Indians by using a binary

measurement - non-(chinese)(malay)(indians) were classified into the ‘Others’ category. However

within this category, there is much emphasis on the Peranakan experience (Appendix B). One

important point to note is that, the URA will decide what is and what is not to be conserved in an

ethnic district. The URA is trying to interpret these landscapes in a way that they feel is suitable for

a variety of discursive elements that are deemed appropriate. The Peranakans of Singapore has

been drawing tourists from across the globe, with an interest in studying and experiencing this

- 17 -
centuries old culture and its art architecture and music . Furthermore, the peranakans have a rich

legacy of material culture (website). Thus, the peranakan experience will yield financial gains.

Hence, the economic discourse that has underscored the tourism campaigns since 1960s is also at

the forefront here. In doing so, such representation “involves a conscious series of choices about

which history-derived products are to be produced and which are not” (Chang & Huang, 2005).

Such selective forms of representation more often than not are misrepresentation because of the

collective memory that we share that Others is a heterogeneous category. Even if the “others”

category were to be represented, it was always Eurasians. However, we see this being twisted in

STB’s interpretation of ‘Others’.

Through the various ideologies that have been highlighted as being responsible to sustain

the misrepresentations in Uniquely Singapore campaign, it is clear that STB and URA are but

voices of the government to a large extent. They are motivated by the economic discourse that

revolves around the government’s initiatives since the time of independence. This can be explained

by Foucault’s microphysics of power whereby power does not flow in a linear fashion. Power

circulates. There are clear indications that URA and STB are ideological state apparatuses for those

in power The extent of the power is also very significant in that any misrepresentation once put

into effect into the real world, carries with it real effects and becomes true in that sense. It is in this

light that the misrepresentations highlighted in this paper has also come to be naturalized and

accepted over all these years.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our group feels that there are a lot of misrepresentations of the Singapore

identity in the Uniquely Singapore campaign. Of the various ideologies and motivations that

sustain these misrepresentations, the economic discourse has been recognised as the single most

responsible factor. This has been the case for the Singapore tourism industry since 1960s. A sound

- 18 -
understanding of this influence alongside with the various ideological drives by the government

will entail a more critical understanding as to why certain dominant readings of landscapes are

specifically intended to as such. Another important element in STB misrepresenting identity of

Singapore is that there is no fixed definition of Singaporean. This notion is constantly in a flux.

Naturally, STB being just a wing of the government, will end up trying to represent this flux. It is

in doing so that they grossly misrepresent because there is no one single identity that they intend to

cater to.

- 19 -
References:

AsiaTravelTips. (2004). Singapore launches its new Destination Brand – ‘Uniquely Singapore’.
Retrieved April 1, 2008 from http://www.asiatraveltips.com/travelnews04/93Singapore.shtml

Butler, R. (1980), ‘The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management
of resources’, Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.

Chang, T.C. & Huang, S. (2005). ‘New Asia- Singapore’: a concoction of tourism, place and image.
In C. Cartier & A. A. Lew.(Eds.), Seductions of Place: Geographical Perspectives on
Globalization and Touristed Landscapes (pp. 260 -275). London and New York: Routledge.

Chang, T.C. & Yeoh, B.S.A. (1997). “New Asia – Singapore”: communicating local cultures
through global tourism. Geoforum, 30. pp 101-115.

Chang, T.C. (1997). From ‘Instant Asia’ to ‘Multi-faceted Jewel’: Urban imaging strategies and
tourism development in Singapore. Urban Geography, 18, 545-562.

Chang, T.C. (2000). Singapore’s Little India: A Tourist Attraction as a Contested Landscape.
Urban Studies, 37(2), pp. 343-366.

Fernandez, W. (1997). New panel to make S’pore a global city. The Straits Times. P12.

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. London: Sage
Publications.

Henderson, J. (2000). Attracting tourists to Singapore’s Chinatown: a case study in conservation

and promotion. Tourist Management, 21, pp. 525-534.

Hill, M. & Lian, K.F. (1995). The Politics of Nation Building and Citizenship in Singapore.
London, Routledge.

Hinch, T. (2004) ‘Indigenous people and tourism’, in A. Lew, C.M. Hall and Al. Williams (eds.), A
Companion To Tourism, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 246-257.

Latif, A. (1997, September 13) Immigration debate good for Singapore. The Straits Times. P21.

Lee, P. (2004). Singapore, Tourism & Me. Singapore: Pamelia Lee Ltd, 41-84.

Leong, C.W.K. (2006). Realising A Unique Singapore: An Examination of Urban Imaging

Strategies. Unpublished honours thesis, National University of Singapore, Dept. of Geography.

Leong, W.T. (1997). Commodifying ethnicity: State and ethnic tourism in Singapore. In M.Picard
& R.E. Wood (Eds.), Tourism, Ethnicity and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies (pp. 71-98).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Nazeer, Z. (2008, April 12). But where’s the Malay input?. The New Paper. P18.

- 20 -
Ooi, C.S. (2004a). Brand Singapore: The hub of New Asia. In N.Morgan, A.Pritchard, & R.Pride
(Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition (pp. 242-262).
London: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.

Ooi, C.S. (2006). Tales from two countries: The place branding of Denmark and Singapore.
Porcelaenshaven: Asia Research Centre.

Pearce, D. (1995), Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis, Harlow: Longman, 3-17.

Peters, M. (1969). International Tourism. London: Hutchinson Publishing Group, Ltd.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London, Pion Ltd.

Richardson, M. (2001). English Bridges Cultural Gap In Singapore. Retrieved March, 20, 2008
from http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/02/12/rsing.t.php

Shaw, G. and Williams, A. (2004), Tourism and Tourism Spaces, London: Sage Publications,
chapter 1, 1-19.

STB. (2004). STB’s Annual Report: A Brand New Destination For Singapore. Retrieved April 14,
2008 from
http://app.stb.gov.sg/Data/pages/1/430c3626b879b4005d41b8a46172e0c0/a_new_brand_for_desti
nation_singapore.pdf

STB. (1998). Uniquely Singapore – Uniquely Singapore. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from
http://www.visitsingapore.com/publish/stbportal/en/home/about_singapore/uniquely_singapore.ht
ml

Wood, R.E. (1980). International Tourism and Cultural Change in Southeast Asia. Economic
Development and Cultural Change. 28(3), pp. 561-581.

Yeoh, B. and Willis, K. (1997) Singapore Unlimited: Configuring Social Identity in the
Regionalisation Process. Retrieved 20 March, 2008, from
http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/nottitc.pdf

- 21 -