submission document- final dissertation version

THE EVOLUTION OF TOURISM IN

SINGAPORE FROM 1964-2015

Aimee McClounan 594210

H433 Urban Modern Eastern Asia, Special Subject Long Essay

BA HistoryDate of Submission: 22 April 2016

Word Count: 9992 words

Supervisor: Professor Angus Lockyer

ii

TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 1

INTRODUCTION 2

CHAPTER ONE

Preserving the Golden Era and Creating an Idealised

Chinatown

6

Neighbourhood versus Economics 8

Chinatown 1

0

Conclusion 1

5

CHAPTER TWO

Buying Tourists

1

6

1960s-2000s –Early Retail Tourism 2

0

21st Century –New Retail Projects 2

2

Conclusion 2

3

CHAPTER THREE

The Last Resort?

2

4

Early Sentosa 2

5

Marina Bay Sands 2

7

Impact of globalisation on the integrated resort 2

9

Late Sentosa 3

1

Conclusion 3

2

1

Tables and Illustrations:

Figure 1. Typical street scene, Chinatown area, c. 1960. (Dale, Urban Planning

In Singapore.)

Figure 2. Chinatown 1998 (Dale, Urban Planning In Singapore.)

Figure 3. Chinatown, 1998 (Dale, Urban Planning In Singapore.)

Figure 4. Orchard Road 1955. The building in the centre is Cold Storage (The Straits Times)

Figure 5. Orchard Road, c. 1970 The building on the left is Cold Storage

http://www.sgreference.com/singapore-places/orchard-road-1970.html

accessed April 2, 2016

Figure 6. Orchard Road, 1998. In the foreground is Cold Storage

Centrepoint (Dale, Urban Planning In Singapore.)

Figure 7. Orchard Road, 2010. The building on the left is Cold Storage

Centrepoint

http://mithunonthe.net/2010/10/31/singapore-20`10-day-2-–-orchard-road-mall-hopping-and-

already-shopping/

accessed April 2, 2016

Figure 8. View of marina Centre reclamation, 1978. Singapore river is in

the foreground (Dale, Urban Planning In Singapore.)

2

http://mithunonthe.net/2010/10/31/singapore-2010-day-2-%E2%80%93-orchard-road-mall-hopping-and-already-shopping/

http://mithunonthe.net/2010/10/31/singapore-2010-day-2-%E2%80%93-orchard-road-mall-hopping-and-already-shopping/

http://www.sgreference.com/singapore-places/orchard-road-1970.html

Introduction

For many, Singapore is a mediator between East and West, tradition and modernity, with

both its cultural enclaves and its soaring skyscrapers. Singapore is a place appealing to a wide

range of people, from those stopping by in a long layover to those on business trips or

vacations.

Singapore is a city state of approximately 690km2, and in 2007 it received over 10

million tourists, generating S$14 billion of revenue1. Despite the scarcity of environmental,

cultural heritage zones and land tourism, Singapore’s tourism industry has been booming

from the 1970s after tourism became encouraged as part of the People’s Action Party’s

policy.

This paper will look at three main pillars of Singapore’s tourism industry. Firstly,

conservation and heritage sites will be examined. As these have been vital in attracting

tourists to the island since the 1970s, and continue to be prominent in tourism today.

Conservation and heritage act simultaneously as a boost to Singapore’s tourism numbers,

while also helping Singapore retain its history, culture and identity. This section therefore

looks at the cultural impact that tourism has and how it helps to preserve the cultural aspects

of Singapore. The key works for this section are Ole Johan Dale’s Urban planning in

Singapore which discusses the early period of conservation. Whereas, Rethinking Chinatown

and heritage conservation in Singapore by Karen Kim et al. brings more contemporary ideas

of preservation. Since conservation is an ongoing process newspapers are an additional key

resource and give different aspects and attitudes through time.

Secondly, shopping and consumerism will be discussed. This was to an extent stage

two of Singapore’s tourism ‘journey’. This section looks more closely at the economic impact

that tourism has. Retail tourism has been the hardest to research, although official

1 STB Corporate Annual Report 07/08. (2008). Singapore.

3

government documents provide key statistics that illustrate the effects of shopping tourism.

Henderson is the key scholar on this subject and his multiple works contribute key economic

knowledge to this subject. The final section combines both the cultural and economic factors

by discussing the creation of integrated resorts; first Sentosa and then more recently Marina

Bay. These resorts appear to be economically driven yet maintain their cultural ties. The topic

of resorts is a more recent topic, therefore newspapers are key primary source and offer a

reliable way to track the development of resorts.

Singapore appeals to tourists for many reasons: low crime rates; international

connectivity via a world-class airport (its convenient location on the popular straits of

Malacca make it opportune for Southeast Asian island hopping); a clean environment;

greenery from gardens and jungle; and an efficient transport system. But Singapore’s

defining feature is its multiculturalism; its cocktail of East and West present in one city.

Singapore is sold as a ‘modern miracle’ with the multiracial harmony. It was also sold as

‘New Asia’ to depict Singapore as “a place where tradition and modernity, East and West,

meet and intermingle comfortably”2. These factors are enticing for foreigners while also

making it easy to navigate as a tourist.

Singapore has become more popular since the twentieth century because of the

change of attitude towards travelling. Previously a generalisation of what travellers were

looking for were cultural and natural escapades, but in more recent times pleasure has been

the driving force for mass tourism. This fits the Singapore vision well as it has a lack of

ecological icons, but has managed to engineer hedonistic experiences that tourists can visit

and enjoy such as the sun, sea, drink and shops, with the newer additions of ubiquitous theme

parks that cater to a large demographic.

Throughout the 1970s the Singaporean government made a conscious effort to expand

its tourist industry, coinciding with the country’s urban renewal programme. Consequently

‘key areas such as the Bras Basah/Orchard Road corridor were targeted for development as a

2 Dhaliwal, R. STPB changes sales pitch after 11 years. The Straits Times, (January 5, 1996,) 3 accessed March 14, 2016

4

tourist area’ 3. Tourism is a crucial industry for Singapore as it entails a wide variety of

benefits–it creates employment opportunities for the inhabitants, increases business activity

as well as being a large revenue generator for Singapore. ‘The tourism sector currently

contributes 4 per cent to Singapore’s gross domestic product and supports some 160,000

jobs.4’ Singapore is therefore continuously looking for ways to maintain and enhance the

country’s status as a competitive and appealing destination.

The main body that drives policy changes in tourism under the guidance of the PAP is

Singapore’s Tourist Board (STB, previously known as Singapore’s Tourist Promotion Board

-STPB). This organisation was set up in 1964 –a year prior to Singapore’s independence. The

STB is a state enterprise designed to create and maintain the tourist infrastructure in

Singapore, and concentrates on soft power with the control of activities and land uses. The

STB has facilitated the development of infrastructure and attractions in Singapore since its

inception and has helped Singapore ‘lure the occasional traveller just by the glamour of its

name - a name which evoked images of a romantic seaport in the mysterious Orient’5. The

STB played a compelling role in increasing tourism, with the volume of tourists has

appreciating from 204,000 in 1967 to half a million in 1970.6

The STPB’s primary concern was to make Singapore one of the ‘Tourism Capitals’ of

the world. Up until 1997 the STPB focused on raising Singapore’s international profile as a

tourist destination and began to create the infrastructure necessary to be a tourism centre with

attractions such as the resort Sentosa Island. In the 1970s, the Board started marketing the

city as a venue for conventions and organised events to attract corporate visitors. Then in the

1980s the STPB took on the task of the Singapore Product Development Plan, which helped

rejuvenate heritage sites.

It wasn’t until 1997 when tourism was formally accepted as a key economic drive,

and by then because Singapore had already become an established tourism destination. The 3 Trocki, C. Singapore. (London: Routledge 2006). .1714"About STB". 2016. Stb.Gov.Sg. Accessed March 13, 2016 https://www.stb.gov.sg/about-stb.5 ‘What's in our name? A lot of tourists’ New Nation, (June 8, 1971), 5 Accessed February 28, 20166 Ibid.

5

STB then expanded to create new tourism attractions. The creation of the STB ‘marked a

decisive move towards tourism industry development, an approach that continues to

distinguish STB from many other national tourism organisations that focus almost

exclusively on marketing and promotional activities.7’

A tourist attraction can be defined as a place or an activity which generates economic

income, and comes in many shapes and forms. This dissertation will seek to explain why

tourism has been key to the Singapore government’s policy since independence, exploring

tourism as a means for Singapore to obtain and sustain culture while also, and perhaps more

significantly, reaping tourism’s economic benefits.

This research investigation primarily uses economic statistics in order to provide an

accurate and reliable way of portraying the success and outcome of the projects undertaken

by the PAP and the STB. This paper aims to provide a more historiographical timeline,

looking at the evolution of the reasoning of why different tourist attractions were

implemented and their varying in importance over time.

7 "About STB". 2016. Stb.Gov.Sg. Accessed March 13. https://www.stb.gov.sg/about-stb.

6

Chapter 1 - Preserving the golden era and creating an

idealised Chinatown

Singapore prides itself in being an ethnically diverse country encompassing a multitude of

cultures, which has resulted in the organic creation of ethnic enclaves. Increased tourism

therefore poses problems for many of the cultural traditions in existence in these areas. A key

issue for tourism in Singapore is the balance between old and new. A degree of modernity is

perceived as essential for tourism, with the Straits Times reporting as early as 1971 how

‘many of the worn-out, deteriorating and obsolete buildings are being torn down to make way

for the dynamic needs of a new metropolis.8’ Yet maintaining a degree of historical integrity

has also become essential for Singapore’s tourism, to juxtapose the surging modern buildings.

This gives rise to important questions – for instance, how can new buildings be constructed

whilst maintaining a rich sense of historical culture and ethnic legacies? This chapter will

discuss the links between tourism and heritage, and explain how they are co-dependent

factors that rely on each other for survival.

The difficulty in finding a balance between tourism and modernising Singapore’s

landscape through urban planning can be illustrated by the challenge posed by declining

tourism in the 1980s to 1990s. A main contributing factor to this decline was the loss of

Singapore’s culture and historical appeal as a result of the mass modernisation embarked on

by the PAP. Rem Koolhaus argues that ‘in the rush for development, history had been almost

completely erased9’ from Singapore. Consequently, a Task Force was created in 1984, and

one of its main objectives was to preserve a multitude of historical areas such as Chinatown,

Little India, and Kampong Glam. This preservation is intended to enhance and illustrate the

diversity of Singapore, as well as demonstrate the ethnic variety of those who initially

migrated to Singapore. It is not a problem unique to Singapore – for example, the

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) states how ‘Effective planning

should aim to preserve the original, whilst also providing a degree of access.10’ The tension

8 ‘At least save front row of traditional buildings’ The Straits Times, (January 3, 1971), 12 accessed March 3, 20169 Koolhaas, R et al. Small, medium, large, extra-large. (New York, N.Y.: Monacelli Press, 1998) 101510 ICOMOS, 1993

7

between heritage conservation versus modern construction is a universal problem for

countries trying to boost tourism. Belinda Yuen et al. claim that ‘apart from its value as an

anchor for Singapore’s national identity, heritage has a much wider economic power11’

suggesting that cultural sustainability must not be ignored when policy aims to improve

tourism and the economy.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has been key in helping to prevent this

decline in visitors occurring again in Singapore. The URA was established in 1974, in a time

when the main aim of the PAP was land efficiency due to Singapore’s small and dense land

area. The URA is responsible for evaluating and granting planning approval for development

projects, in order to conserve both historical and cultural buildings as well as national

heritage sights. The URA has conserved 7,200 buildings to date12. Tourism and heritage is

not the only area of concern for the URA, but it remains high on the agenda as the body has

the power to decide what buildings are worthy of conservation, redevelopment, and

potentially appealing to prospective tourists. In order to improve and enhance the heritage of

areas in Singapore, the URA has the following objectives:13

◦ to retain and enhance the existing activities which are a part of the historical and

cultural heritage;

◦ to restore buildings of historical and architectural significance

◦ to improve the general physical environment;

◦ to retain traditional trades while consolidating the area with new, compatible ones

◦ to introduce appropriate new features to enhance further the identity of the place

◦ to involve both public and private sectors in carrying out conservation

These aims show how important conservation is to the scheme and consequently how

conserving historical sites for tourism has the potential to play an integral role in Singapore’s

economy. When looking at the objectives from a perspective of tourism, it is clear they

11 Yuen, Belinda, and Ng Tze Hock.. "Urban Conservation In Singapore: Tradition Or Tourist Bane?". Planning Practice And Research 16, (2001) 4212 "Urban Redevelopment Authority". (2016). Ura.Gov.Sg. Accessed April 1. https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/. 13 Urban Redevelopment Authority, (1995)

8

specifically target cultural tourism. For Singapore cultural tourism was defined in 1996 by

the then STB Chief Executive Dr. Tan Chain Nam:

‘[cultural tourism] embraces the full range of experiences visitors can

undertake to learn what makes Singapore a distinctive destination -our

lifestyle, heritage, arts and people. It means exposing visitors to our

performances, visual arts and heritage. It is the business of providing and

interpreting that experience to visitors14.

An example in Indonesia demonstrates the importance of heritage sites for other

countries, not solely Singapore. Indonesia re-developed part of Jakarta into an old Dutch

town complete with cobblestone streets to recreate the colonial era and attract tourists. Hence,

redevelopment must bear tourism needs in mind, and visitor needs should be fulfilled. This

agenda demonstrates that although improvements of the island are taking place for the

improvement of ‘the general physical environment’, ultimately the conservation of heritage

sites remains core for redevelopment, with the underlying emphasis being on improvement

rather than starting completely from scratch and creating brand new buildings continuously.

Nationhood vs Economics

For Singapore, ‘ultimately, urban sustainable tourism is about preserving the historic

continuity of urban places so that succeeding generations of residents, as well as travellers

and tourists, can continue to experience and sample the environmental, economic, social and

cultural aspects of these places.15’ Thus, urban redevelopment in Singapore is not necessarily

about creating a new modern utopia country purely for visitors; it must also embrace its

national identity, providing the population with some continuity in a country that is rapidly

evolving and changing. By keeping part of Singapore’s history, it reminds the population of

their roots so they are not alienated by the PAP’s redevelopment. Conservation is as much a

tool of nationhood as it is a tool to increase tourism.

14 Destination Singapore. (1996). Singapore: Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. 18 15 Savage, V., Huang, S. and Chang, T. The Singapore River thematic zone: sustainable tourism in an urban context. The Geographical Journal, 170 (2004) 224

9

Singapore is a highly pluralist society; this is unique and is a major attraction to

tourists who wish to see the diversity of Singapore. Savage et al. agree, arguing ‘if the

uniqueness of places is eroded, their appeal to locals and tourists will be severely

undermined16’. Preservation of Singapore’s history is now integral to tourism. The appeal that

tourists feel towards heritage sites in Singapore is to an extent a feel of fascination for the

‘mystic orient’. During its modernisation process Singapore created an almost ‘western’ feel,

with it influencing a lot of its architecture with high-rise buildings. Heritage sites serve to

break this up, varying the landscape - important in maintaining the ‘mystic’ aura and enticing

tourists. However, it is important to remember that this identity is a creation of tourists

themselves. It is visitors who believe that Singapore is the ‘mystic orient’ not the native

population. So although there is no doubt that heritage projects have helped Singapore to

preserve an identity and a sense of nationhood with the connections to its roots, ultimately it

is merely an act to encourage tourism by altering the image Singapore extends to the outside

world.

On the contrary to conservation being a response to preserving ethnic identities it was

also a process spearheaded at a time when Singapore experienced a sharp 3.5% fall in tourist

arrivals in 198317. Among non-Asian tourist visitors, Chinatown was seen as an interesting,

exotic and cultured part of Singapore and was one of the most popular destinations prior to

the tourism decline. The big push for the STPB to start conserving Chinatown was from the

Pannell Kerr Forster team. They strongly recommended the ‘conservation of historical and

cultural features to provide a remarkable contrast to the urban setting of this dynamic

commercial city/state. Conservation of the suggested areas will provide a focus of attractions

which will bring to life the historical and cultural heritage of the nation’18. They also

estimated that the economic returns to the tourist industry would be greatly enhanced by the

preservation, predicting that ‘the enhancement of Chinatown and the Singapore River as a

historical preservation districts can increase potential occupancies of hotels by 369,000 room

nights in 1988. The impact on the Singapore economy in total expenditure would be

16 Ibid.17 Yeoh, Brenda SA, and Shirlena Huang."The Conservation-Redevelopment Dilemma In Singapore". Cities 13 (6) (1996) 413,Kim, K., Kwok, K. and Wee, C. Rethinking Chinatown and heritage conservation in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society (2000) 3818 Pannell, Kerr and Forster, Tourism Development in Singapore. (Singapore Tourist Promotion Board: Singapore 1986)

10

approximately S$70 million19.These figures strongly encouraged the government to conserve

and create heritage sites since they appeared to have such potential to dramatically increase

tourism numbers.

Subsequently, in October 1986, Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chock Tong, disclosed

in the Tourism Product Development Plan that the government would spend approximately

S$1 billion on tourism infrastructure over the next five years. S$187 million would be spent

of building preservation and restoration projects, with another S$260 million spent on

upgrading and historical areas and landmarks. Furthermore, S$30 million would be set aside

redeveloping Fort Canning Park, and S$470 million on developing Sentosa and Lazarus

Islands. The Plan…envisaged Singapore as a ‘composite microcosm -a unique destination

combing elements of modernity with oriental mystique20. Having approximately 45% of the

money being put towards conservation projects, shows the importance and extent it plays in

the overall tourism in Singapore.21

Chinatown

Chinatown is a key case study to show the restoration measures taken by Singapore.

Chinatown itself grew to become an ethnic enclave during the height of immigration into

Singapore, and expanded dramatically from Telok Ayer Street which was the primary area set

aside by Sir Stamford Raffles –founder of British Singapore in 1819- for the Chinese

community in the Raffles Plan in 1822. By 1901, the population of Singapore had grown to

approximately 227,000, 70 per cent of whom were Chinese and remained concentrated in the

Chinese quarters in the centre of Singapore22. Chinatown was the first area allocated for

Chinese settlement and thus it became the Chinese hub for residential, commercial and

cultural activities. Many set up business in shophouses, which were part of the key

architecture of Chinatown and built in the style of traditional Canton or Amoy shophouses in

China. ‘The value of these shophouses lies not only in their individual architectural equalities

but also in their contribution to the larger urban texture. The shophouses present a certain 19 Ibid.20 The Tourism Product Development Plan Singapore,1986 cited in Dale, Ole Johan. 1999. Urban Planning In Singapore. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press. p4821`Ibid.22 Dale, Ole Johan.. Urban Planning In Singapore. (Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press 1991) 20

11

uniformity of scale while providing variety in detail, interior arrangements and usage23’.

These buildings characterise the overcrowded urban living space in that historical period with

the five-foot ways, and narrow streets seen in Figure 1.

However, during Singapore’s mass ‘modernisation’ process of rebuilding the state

after independence, the STBP initially felt that such ethnic enclaves were looked upon on as

slum areas that needed to be cleared to make the land more efficient. The general feeling of

Singapore at the time –including amongst leading politicians- was that conservation of

Chinatown was impractical for Singapore. The land could be redeveloped into a way that

used the space more effectively. High rise buildings provided more floor space, employment

and an increase to the tax base, while simultaneously clearing the perceived slum areas that

reminded Singapore of its colonial past24. Consequently, ‘itinerant street hawkers were

resettled to purpose-built markets and food centres and several of its traditional two- or three-

story shop houses demolished to make way for modern high-rise commercial and residential

development25’. However, when tourist numbers dropped it became clear to the government

that the retention of buildings and traditional areas had more economic value than first

perceived. The Tourism Task Force had the objective of enticing tourists back to Singapore,

especially, Chinatown and other popular historical sites that need to be conserved by the

state, showing the many effects and influences that tourism has on Singapore on both an

identity front and an economic one.

By 1988, restoration and improvement was evident. Figures 2 and 3 illustrates the

restoration process taken on by Singapore. Note how the buildings have been developed and

cleaned up but have exaggerated the Chinese aspects of the shutters and the Chinese writing,

to make it the ultimate Chinese experience, creating an oriental ideal that tourists want to

experience with the naivety that it is realistic and natural.

23 Kim, Kwok,and Wee . Rethinking Chinatown and heritage conservation in Singapore. 1924 Dale, Urban Planning In Singapore.4825 Yuen, Belinda, and Ng Tze Hock. "Urban Conservation In Singapore: Tradition Or Tourist Bane?". Planning Practice And Research 16,( 2001) 43

12

Figure 1. Typical street scene, Chinatown area, c. 1960.

Figure 2. Chinatown 1998

13

Figure 3. Chinatown, 1998

As a result of attempting to reproduce a historical area in the name of tourism, the

STB created the Chinatown Heritage Centre in 2002. This was an effort to recover the

historical integrity of Chinatown and create a practical, historically accurate and visitor-

friendly experience. A joint development with STB and the National Heritage Board (NHB),

the Heritage Centre was a milestone demonstrating the STB’s effort to rejuvenate the

historical district in the twenty-first century. The Heritage Centre is important for Chinatown

to attract tourists for reasons aside from historical architecture. This is also important in more

contemporary times because shops are less authentic and are targeting tourist with souvenirs

in comparison to traditional trading. The Chinatown Heritage Centre has created a man-made

but more authentic experience. It is also ticketed, helping to provide economic income for

both the STB and the NHB. The seriousness of this project can be understood with the recent

refurbishment in 2015 in order to add another floor that helps to illustrate the historical

aspects of Singapore as a whole, in addition to the history of Chinatown shophouses. The

constant upkeep shows the importance it has as an attraction for Chinatown.

14

To grasp the success of the conservation of Chinatown, perhaps the most obvious way

would be to look at the registered number of visitors. In 1983, there were 2.8 million visitors.

Nearly ten years later, this figure had more than doubled to 6.5 million26. This increase is not

solely due to the redevelopment of Chinatown, and other chapters will discuss the

involvement of the STPB in other areas of tourism. But Chinatown is an important

contributor to the boost in tourism and, in addition, it suggests an association with enhanced

heritage sites and increased tourism.

Although conservation is key to retain the history of Singapore and maintain its past,

heritage sites have become commodified. ‘The genuine historical and cultural value interns of

people and buildings is becoming subsidiary to the commercial needs of the tourist

industry’27. The attempt that the PAP has made to recreate a historical atmosphere is merely a

façade to increase tourism. Often ‘in its drive to centralise activities in a single complex, all

things ‘Chinese’ are selected for inclusion…This explains how poetry recitals, which have no

history in Chinatown, have found a place in the Village Theatre’28, in the hope that including

and exaggerating any form of Chinese culture, showing temples, and tradition trades such as

herbalists, temple idol carvers, calligraphers and effigy makers will make Chinatown more

appealing to the tourist. When historical buildings were destroyed for housing development,

the history lost sometimes cannot be artificially recreated and regained despite efforts by

government agencies. This links back to a point earlier in this chapter regarding forced

nationhood and identity to appease tourists.

Conclusion

The juxtaposition of heritage and modernisation in conservation poses a problem for tourism

planning in Singapore. Singapore’s tourism industry is crucial for its economy, and

sacrificing modernity in certain areas is the price that must be paid for the island’s future

economic well-being. Tourism provides an agenda for the preservation of historical areas,

buildings and artefacts; However the commercialisation of the area does uproot the

26 Dale, Urban Planning In Singapore. 48-927 Ibid. 15628 Kim, Kwok, and Wee. Rethinking Chinatown and heritage conservation in Singapore.

15

community and alter their identity 29. How far can Singapore manipulate its planning to

maximise income from tourism before it becomes too forced and the citizens of Singapore

become unhappy? True change is welcomed by the Singapore population, but the

conservation of the historical environment and culture is what guides this acceptance. 30 This

chapter has shown that conservation plays a fundamental role in the nation building of

Singapore and helps to solidify its identity while the actions taken by the URA and STB are

more related to tourism and increasing visitors.

29 Savage, Huang, and Chang, The Singapore River thematic zone. 21430 ‘At least save front row of traditional buildings’ 12

16

Chapter Two - Buying Tourists

The activity of shopping appeals to Singaporeans and tourists alike. As a result, shopping

tourism in Singapore is significant as it is a sector of tourism with large economic potential.

Shopping is another means by which Singapore has developed a reputation as an alluring

destination. With its constant state of urban revitalisation, creating an entity as an urban

centre full of shopping districts has been a strategy by the Singapore Tourist Board to attract

both international as well as more local tourists. This chapter discusses how Singapore has

evolved into a ‘must-visit’ shopping destination for visitors in Southeast Asia.

Shopping is an activity that generates economic income, it is therefore central to the

tourist industry. Despite admittedly being a lower priority compared to other attractions such

as heritage or resorts, shopping is recognised as a tourist pastime enjoyed by many and helps

to enhance the attractiveness of a destination31. The success of shopping is perhaps that it

appeals universally. It is not just a place to shop but also a place with a sense of community

where people can take respite from the heat and stressful work life to rendezvous with others;

where shoppers can appreciate displays in addition to purchasing items. Thus, having a large

presence of an activity which appeals to so many people is not only beneficial for the

population of Singapore but, as Dale states, ‘its prevalence and growth adds weight to the

claim that Singapore is indeed, still the commercial emporium of the East.32’

Singapore’s urban renewal program has enabled the construction of new retail

buildings which have changed the architecture of the city, by supplementing shophouses as

31 Kent, W.E., Shock, P.J. &Snow, R.E... Shopping: tourism’s unsung hero(ine). Journal of Travel Research (1983)

Prus, R. and Dawson, L. 1991 ‘Shop ‘til you drop: Shopping as recreational and laborious activity’, Canadian Journal of Sociology (1991)

Henderson, et al. Shopping, tourism and retailing in Singapore. 37

32 Dale, Urban Planning In Singapore. 226

17

the dominant retail architecture form33. As discussed in the previous chapter, the 1960s and

1970s saw a period of mass redevelopment, with shophouses that were seen as slum–like

being destroyed. The 1970s in Singapore saw an increase in tourism and saw the completion

of the first selections of shopping centres erected along Orchard Road. Orchard Road has

made a name for itself as the principle shopping area with over 30 malls and is located in the

central area (CA) of Singapore. It is ranked one of the most frequented places in Singapore

with approximately 70 per cent of tourists visiting it per year on average tourists34. Orchard

Road was seen as an ideal shopping destination due to the close proximity of large hotels that

had already been constructed. The close links between hospitality and shopping have been of

mutual advantage to both areas, with tourists wanting to stay near the popular shopping

destinations. Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the effects of redevelopment on Singapore and are

all taken on approximately the same road making it clear to show the process of development,

with construction of taller buildings, pedestrian areas, electronic lighting and vast

advertisements to attract tourists.

Chapter one showed that the urban redevelopment of the 1970s was intended to

rebuild ‘mystique’ and create a false ‘Asian’ aesthetic and can be seen via the shophouses in

Figure 5. However, it may also have served to provide contrast to more modern shopping

departments, making them more prominent.

33 Yeung, Yue-man.. National Development Policy And Urban Transformation In Singapore. (Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography 1973) 8734 STB Corporate Annual Report 07/08. 2008. Singapore. in Henderson, et al. Shopping, tourism and retailing in Singapore. 41

18

Figure 4. Orchard Road 1955. The building in the centre is Cold Storage (The Straits Times)

Figure 5. Orchard Road, c. 1970 The building on the left is Cold Storage

19

Figure 6. Orchard Road, 1998. In the foreground is Cold Storage Centrepoint

Figure 7. Orchard Road, 2010. The building on the left is Cold Storage Centrepoint

20

1980-2000 - Early Retail Tourism

With the onset of the 1980s, Singapore observed the start of the true consumer nature of

tourism. After the construction of shopping centres in the 1970s, it was the 1980s that saw

Singapore become a truly established shopping district, and was the first time that the PAP

could really experience the potential economic importance of tourism. The shops in the CA

contributed to approximately 16 per cent of Singapore’s total foreign exchange earnings in

the early 1980s35. Shopping also benefitted other industries such as advertisers, travel

agencies, airlines, hotels, restaurants and retailers. Shopping is a multi-faceted industry that

has knock-on effects on different service industries, which explains why the PAP is so keen

for shopping to prosper.

Singapore lacks natural tourist sites with its urban landscape. It was therefore

important for Singapore to carve out a niche for tourism that would help it stand out from

competitors – shopping served to fill this niche and Singapore started to see the economic

growth for tourism. An ‘STPB survey showed that 85-90 per cent of visitors did some

shopping in Singapore36’. One factor which may explain why shopping is so appealing in

Singapore is a low Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate, which in Singapore is 7%. It is

similar to neighbouring countries such as Hong Kong (5%) and Malaysia (6%), which also

keeps retail competitive in Singapore. These low tax rates have allowed Singapore to make a

name for itself as a luxury shopping destination with people travelling to exploit the low

GST. A low tax rate therefore could be part of a strategy by the PAP and STB to entice

tourists into Singapore retail, although it has never been explicitly acknowledged.

In 1983, of a total tourist expenditure of $2,483.1 million, shopping amounted to a

total tourist expenditure of $1,420.6 million, which is roughly half of total tourist spending.

This was equivalent to approximately 14 per cent of the total retail turnover of $10.02

billion37. The rapid growth of shopping can be seen in the same statistics seven years later. In

1990, tourists spend $6,077.4 million, of which $3.392.6 million was on shopping38. This is 35 Dale,. Urban Planning In Singapore.21836 Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, Survey of Overseas Visitors to Singapore, Singapore, 1982-9137 Singapore tourist Promotion Board,1983 Survey of Overseas Vistiots to Singapore Cited in Dale,Urban Planning In Singapore.21838 Dale,. Urban Planning In Singapore.219.

21

very high in comparison to a country of similar size, such as St Lucia where shopping is not

key for tourism and most of the sector receives its income from environmental attractions.

These statistics of growth over a mere seven-year period gave assurance to the Singapore

government that they were backing a correct area of tourism and encouraged them to grow

the shopping industry even further.

The majority of tourist shopping is done in the Central Area, due to its prominent

reputation as a shopping hub. Orchard Road in particular is a popular destination in the

Central Area with 60 per cent of goods sold in the Tanglin Shopping Centre being sold to

tourists in the early 1980s39. Dale has estimated that by the end of the 1990s ‘tourist

spending amounts to more than 40 per cent of the ’net’ turnover within the Central Area40'.

However, while it had become a tourist shopping nucleus, the number of locals shopping in

the CA had decreased, resulting in the customer base becoming dependent on tourists. The

creation of Housing Development Board estates and smaller shopping centres led to a

decreased number of locals shopping in the CA, since shopping opportunities were available

outside the busier Central Area. Consequently, the tourist income from shopping became

even more important and created more pressure for the STB to keep the CA up to the

standards expected by tourists in order to ensure its profitability as a tourist attraction. This

has led to Singapore altering the merchandise sold to fit the dominant tourist market in the

CA and as such, products have become very appearance-dominant, with clothing, make-up

and footwear being the dominant goods purchased by tourists.41 This selection of

commodities may be a reflection of the earlier point of Singapore having lower tax rates

resulting in it being beneficial for tourists to purchase these goods in a country with lower tax

rates.

21st Century - New Retail Tourism Projects

39 Ibid. 22040 Ibid. 21941 Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, Survey of Overseas Visitors to Singapore,

22

Despite shopping being part of tourism since the beginning of the STPB, it really came into

its own in the 21st century with the PAP pushing for even greater focus on shopping as part of

the tourist industry. In 2008, the STB noted that ‘shopping is already ‘one of the key pillars

of Singapore’s tourism42’ and visitors spent S$3.5 billion in 200743’ With this in mind, in

2010, approximately 100,000 sqm of retail space was added to Orchard Road44. The biggest

shopping tourism strategy in recent years comes in the form of Tourism 2015 (T2015), a ten-

year tourism project for Singapore launched in 2005. This saw the creation of a dedicated

Tourism Shopping and Dining Division within the STB in order to help ‘establish Singapore

as one of the most compelling shopping and dining destinations in Asia45’. It was an

economic strategy intending to transform the sector into a key economic force for Singapore.

The outline of T2015 by the Tourist Board is that they ‘aim to triple tourism receipts

to S$30 billion, double visitor arrivals to 17 million and create 100,000 more tourism-related

jobs in the process46. In support of T2015, a ‘S$2 billion Tourism Development Fund has also

been set up to nurture the development of new tourism products, attract major business and

leisure events and build up the necessary capabilities and infrastructure, in partnership with

the private sector.’ 47 T2015 was not aimed purely at retail, but the momentum created had

positive knock-on effects for the shopping industry. In 2011, ‘27% of every tourist dollar

spent48’ and accounting for ‘21 per cent of Tourism Receipts in 201249’. This illustrates the

economic impact that shopping has, and why it is supported by the government in order to

help create additional revenue. Furthermore, the fact that over a quarter of tourist spending is

spent solely on shopping shows how effectively the STB has succeeded in making Singapore

famed as a shopping destination.

42 STB Corporate Annual Report 07/08. (2008). Singapore.43 Henderson et al. Shopping, tourism and retailing in Singapore. 4044 Dining & Retail".. Stb.Gov.Sg. 2016 accessed March 12, 2016https://www.stb.gov.sg/industries/dining-and-retail.45 STB Corporate Annual Report 07/08. (2008). Singapore.46 Henderson et al. Shopping, tourism and retailing in Singapore 3947 "Epigram - Singapore Tourism Board". 2005, accessed March 12, 2016 https://www.stb.gov.sg/news-and-publications/publications/Documents/X1STBAR-0405-UniqueMomentsinaUniqueYear.pdf.48 "How Retail Sector Will Benefit From Singapore's $24.5B Tourism Receipts Target". 2013. Singapore Business Review. Accessed February 27, 2016 http://sbr.com.sg/hotels-tourism/news/how-retail-sector-will-benefit-singapores-245b-tourism-receipts-target#sthash.kJhpNxgv.dpuf.49Dining & Retail"

23

Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated how the government has supported economic ventures through

the funding of retail projects and groups – like the Task Force, STB and T2015 - in order to

boost sectors of the economy that benefit heavily from tourism, such as the consumer and

retail sector. Singapore has managed to make a name for itself as a shopping destination as a

result of the PAP pushing for greater retail tourism in Singapore. By creating this shopping

utopia identity for itself, it has managed to reap the economic benefits generated. Although

never explicitly stated, there is little doubt that economic benefits were a major factor as to

why the PAP ensued retailing so intensely. With such a small land area, it would make sense

to vary the tourist attraction but since it is encouraged and erected throughout the island it

must economically lucrative as a part of the tourism industry, as an industry based on people

spending money.

24

Chapter 3 - The last resort?

As mentioned throughout this paper, Singapore faces a significant constraint in the form of

limited land. Does the creation of the ‘integrated resort’ phenomenon perhaps provide a

solution to these spatial concerns? Singapore’s resorts are a more recent manifestation of

tourism policy. Its two main resorts are Resorts World Sentosa and Marina Bay Sands. They

have become so influential that they have warranted their own term, being designated

‘integrated resorts’ by the Singapore Tourism Board. Integrated resorts are normally defined

as a designated area, usually self-contained, to provide an area of vast tourist facilities,

including recreation, relaxation or learning facilities. In Singapore the term specifically refers

to the major resort properties, which feature gaming-integrated hotels together with

convention facilities, entertainment shows, theme parks, luxury retail and fine dining50.

‘Integrated resorts create a themed environment that today forms a strong basis of modern

tourism operations themed environment satisfies the search for leisure and happiness by

means of production of desire made effective through marketing, advertising and the

provision of related services and infrastructure51’. Integrated resorts therefore have the

potential for mass and intensive usage. They helped to grow the tourism sector.‘In 2011, the

sector registered S$22.3 billion in tourism receipts and saw 13.2 million visitor arrivals,

increases of 18 and 13 per cent respectively from 201052’Although not primarily down to

integrated resorts there is no doubt that they encouraged tourism growth.

One of the main features of the resorts is that they are intended to be multipurpose,

and attract tourists via multiple channels. Although important for tourism, heritage sites and

retail tourism have limited scope for opportunities. Resorts can offer a platform to host

multiple tourist attractions in the one area. In addition to having permanent tourist attractions,

they also offer an area for national gatherings such as New Year’s celebrations, national

holidays, and were used to host the Youth Olympic Games in 2010. Resorts offer tourists

convenience by clustering a variety of activities together.50 "Integrated Resorts". Singapore Tourism Board. Retrieved 15 August 2015 accessed February 27, 201651 Wong, T., Yuen, B. and Goldblum, C. (2008). Spatial planning for a sustainable Singapore. New York: Springer p6252 STB Corporate Annual Report 11/12. 2012. Singapore. in Henderson, et al. Shopping, tourism and retailing in Singapore 4.

25

The URA, established in 1974, was important in focusing efforts to maximise land

usage in a small, densely packed country. This focus can be clearly illustrated in integrated

resorts. In order to create sufficient space for integrated resorts and other tourist attractions,

Singapore has undergone a process involving significant land reclamation. For instance the

island of Sentosa, which hosts an integrated resort, has three man-made beaches (Siloso

Beach on the west side, Palawan Beach lies in the middle and Tanjong Beach slightly toward

the east) created from land reclamation in order to make the land more appealing and have a

greater physical area as shown in Figure 7 with the image of Marina Bay. This chapter will

discuss the evolution of resorts in Singapore and how the different aspects of a multi-purpose

resort have different targets such as economic, environmental, world status; thus creating a

world of efficiency.

Figure 8. View of marina Centre reclamation, 1978. Singapore river is in the foreground

Early Sentosa

The first real notion of an integrated resort was when Sentosa was first transformed into a

tourist destination in January 1969. The STPB then revealed plans to boost tourism on the

island to help make the island attractive to new people. These plans featured idyllic chalet-

style hotels, restaurants, golf courses, and leisure activities such as horse-riding, fishing,

26

water-skiing and scuba-diving, in conjunction with the island’s natural beaches, forests and

scenery53. In essence, the STPB created the contemporary equivalent of the resort world that

is seen today. Although Sentosa was not strictly speaking an integrated resort, it had similar

qualities: an area that is self-contained, multi-purpose and built specifically for tourism.

The 1970s saw the first real purpose built tourism planning from scratch. The heritage

tourist sites that were discussed in chapter one were built on previous cultural history from

enclave populations and therefore were not purpose-built tourist areas from the beginning.

Furthermore, although the retail sector examined in chapter two was expanded for tourism

purposes, it would have existed nonetheless to satisfy the needs of the Singaporean

population. In March 1971, the government announced its plan to spend S$11.5 million in the

financial year of 1971/2 to develop Sentosa into a resort destination that would tempt tourists

to spend longer holidays in Singapore54. In March 1972, the government unveiled a S$124

million plan for developing Sentosa.55 The vast amount of money funnelled into Sentosa

shows that the Government felt that investment in luxury, purpose-built tourism infrastructure

was a project that would have substantial economic returns even in the 1970s. When

discussing the creation of the resort on Sentosa island in 1965 it was clear that LKY had

mixed feelings towards it, with conflicting interests on creating a hardworking population

versus economic interest from tourism. He explicitly said:

‘We’ve got an island set aside for all this…We don’t want all this…but the

American tourists like it, and all Malaysians can go there. Singaporeans will serve

them. But, for Singaporeans, we will go to sleep early. We will wake early.

Tomorrow we work hard … Let the other fellows have a good time. Never mind -

we will give the full red carpet treatment56’

53‘ A ‘paradise Island’, January 23, 1969 (The Straits Times p10. Accessed April 16, 201654 ‘$11.5m to develop Sentosa.’ The Straits Times, March 27. 1971 accessed April 16, 201655 ‘Sentosa pleasure island will have Pirates Cove’. March 24, 1972. The Straits Times 32. Accessed March 16, 201656 1965 Lee Kuan Yew Eastern Sun, 18 April 1968

27

This speech by LKY supports the notion that economic gain comes as a priority for the PAP

and, although creating a virtuous population is important, there is little point in having

virtuous people if the country is economically poor. This explains why the PAP pushes so

hard for tourism to be successful, and invests in projects such as integrated resorts.

Marina Bay Sands

Marina Bay Sands was the first official integrated resort in Singapore, and was completed in

2010. It was not only considered vital for tourism; it was also intended to be ‘the new focal

point for the nation57’. The area Marina Bay Sands is developed on was always a key area for

Singapore. Historically, the city of Singapore initially grew around the port as a result of its

strategic position on Southeast Asian trade routes. As such the river mouth became the centre

of trade, commerce and finance and to this day, the area around the old Singapore River

mouth remains the most expensive and economically important piece of land in Singapore,

still relying to some extent on its trading port for revenue.

Marina Bay Sands is co-dependent on the Central Business District (CBD) which is

located on the opposite the Singapore River in order for its success. Wong et al. concurs

stating that the CBD and Marina Bay are co-existent hence their close proximity to each

other. Marina Bay relies partly on business travellers who visit the CBD58. Wong has brought

to light the fact that Singapore must cater to a new tourist demographic of business people

vising the CBD. Part of the reason for Marina Bay’s construction was to captivate this new

variety of visitor that had different needs to those of traditional holiday goers and

backpackers. The land used for Marina Bay was initially planned for shopping, similar to that

discussed in chapter two. However, as Singapore has evolved into a more knowledge-

intensive economy with ‘a new and growing concern of optimising the prime central city

lands takes priority from the early period of the decade 2000s according to Wong59’. Marina

Bay sands was altered to occupy higher-end leisure activities to fit the CBD. Marina Bay

57 Khairuddin, Siti Aishah,Marina Bay, Garden City by the Bay Apr 25, 2014 accessed February 12, 2016 http://www.slideshare.net/sitiakhairuddin/urban-case-study-marina-bay-singapore58 Wong, T., Yuen, B. and Goldblum, C. Spatial planning for a sustainable Singapore. (New York: Springer.2008) 6359 Wong, Yuen,. and Goldblum. Spatial planning for a sustainable Singapore 63

28

Sands is useful in illustrating how the modern city has to adapt to a globalised world

characterised by rapid change with different audiences who have new desires.

When plans were initially announced to open an integrated resort at Marina Bay, four

entertainment groups bid for the opportunity to develop the resort: Las Vegas Sands, MGM-

CapitalLand, Harrah’s Entertainment and Genting International. The Winner was Las Vegas

Sands, a US-based group that is currently the world’s largest casino company by market

value. Las Vegas Sands impressed the panel of five cabinet ministers with its diverse

approach to tourism encompassing ‘five elements [which] were the MICE (meetings,

incentive travel, conventions and exhibitions), entertainment (branded symbols of a global-

scale entertainment business with tourist appealing varieties), attractions (financial,

professional and specialised services), retain and dining experiences ( globally appealing

shopping offers, floating pavilion restaurants with top chefs), and the gaming business

offer.60’ MICE had been a key focus for tourism in Singapore, but the creation of integrated

resorts enabled MICE to be in one place as well as encompassing other tourist practices.

Consequently, through the development of integrated resorts, and Singapore becoming an

ever more popular holiday destination for both holidaymakers, businessmen and stop-overs.

As Singapore has modernised, its economy has increasingly shifted towards the

tertiary service sectors, with tourism becoming ever more influential as the world’s largest

service industry. Unfortunately, conventional tourism is limited in Singapore due: to it

lacking in having abundant historical sites (although the few available are an asset); being a

small island; and having other countries offering tourist attractions nearby. The creation of an

integrated resort perhaps came as a response to these problems by artificially creating a

tourism sector that fitted the environment of Singapore.

In addition, the creation of the integrated resorts could be related to the economic

sustainability that tourism provides for Singapore. During the period of 1993-2002 tourism

began to lag behind other sectors in Singapore’s economy. ‘Its contribution dropped from

60 Straits Times 27 May 2006 cited in Wong, Yuen,. and Goldblum. Spatial planning for a sustainable Singapore 69

29

6.1% in 1993 to 3% in 200261'. This decrease illustrates there was a clear need for the PAP

and the STB to intervene in order to boost tourism and in turn the economy. Creating an

integrated resort in the central area seemed logical as it is accessible to many people and has

direct transport links to Changi Airport. Such a massive project had the potential to

significantly boost tourism. The beauty of an integrated resort is that it is very much a self-

contained area where tourists can spend their money in one place, giving it optimum

profitability to help boost the national economy. The importance of Marina Bay to

Singapore’s tourism industry can be shown in the branding process for this integrated resort.

The URA spent S$400,000 on branding62 with the knowledge that this is an essential

investment in order to generate a return. Although a large investment does not necessarily

mean the project will be profitable. But, in order the invest such a large amount of money the

risk of not profiting is normally low with a large expectation that Marina Bay will contribute

heavily to the national economy.

Impact of globalisation on the integrated resort

The Singaporean state has a reputation of having conservative attitudes. However, it

recognises the need to partially reinvent itself in order to attract tourists as well as

international capital that could also be put towards the tourist industry via the funding of

integrated resorts. Accordingly, many policies in tourism development and land use have

been altered to enable the ‘broader trend in re-enchanting the city with continual

entertainment and more liberal leisure activities, itself part of a larger strategy to heighten the

city’s international appeal’63. For instance, Singapore opened up to gaming tourism mainly

that of gambling. Casinos are a key and sustainable form of tourism for Singapore as it needs

little physical space. The PAP itself has always had a very strong anti-gambling stance with

its own people, with fears that it brings social disorder through addiction and irresponsibility.

However, with Singapore being surrounded with other tourist centres such as Hong Kong and

Bangkok that offer outlets for businesspeople and tourists to spend their money and gamble,

adding casinos to an integrated resort appeared essential in order to maintain competitiveness

with other popular tourist destinations. Therefore, this is a policy that is clearly economically

driven despite the contradiction with actual gambling law in Singapore itself. Gambling has

61 Ibid.. 64 62‘It's not a waste of money’ Today-Afternoon Edition August 5, 2005 accessed March 12, 201663 Ho, E. Changing landscapes of Singapore. (2013). 247

30

been illegal since 1926 due to associated negative effects like gambling addiction and

increased crime. Yet by 2013 the casinos in both Marina Bay and Sentosa were the most

profitable casinos in the world64. The implementation of these casinos was confirmed by the

prime minster of the time Lee Hsien Loong, April 18, 2005 as a method to boost the tourism

industry of Singapore, threatened by growing competition from casinos in other nearby

locations such as Bangkok, Macau and Hong Kong65.

‘Three major developments caused us to re-examine our position [on casinos]:

we are losing ground in tourism. Cities all round the world are reinventing

themselves. (And) we are not condoning a casino, but an IR –an integrated resort.

The IRs will have all kinds of amenities… The great majority will not be there to

gamble… But within this large development and slew of activities, there is one

small but essential part [casinos] which offers gaming and which helps make the

entire project financially viable.’ –Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at Parliament

Sitting, 18 April 200566

This speech illustrates once more that tourism in Singapore is economically driven, with

casinos serving as vital contributors to the viability of large projects like integrated resorts

while also providing a stream of steady income for the economy.

As well as integrated resorts being the result of state economic interest, they also

create a platform for Singapore globally - both aesthetically, and in terms of its ability to host

world-famous events. A key example of this is the SingTel Singapore Grand Prix (F1) which

Singapore started hosting in 2007 at the Marina Bay. Although perhaps the building of a F1

64 High-Rollers From China Reuters. 9 April, 2013 accessed March 12, 201665Why Singapore embraced integrated resorts" Daily FT, 13 November 2013 " accessed March 8, 2016

66 STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG ON INTEGRATED RESORT ON MONDAY, 18 APRIL 2005 AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE. 4 accessed April 12, 2016.

31

may not appear like conventional tourism, the track was manipulated to deliberately highlight

the key sites of Singapore, such as Marina Bay Sands, Singapore Flyer, CBD, and the

Esplanade. Consequently, F1 was not only used to increase the number of tourists visiting in

itself but also as a way to market Singapore to more than ‘500 million viewers worldwide67’.

The creation of integrated resorts has enabled Singapore to create a reputation as a

‘green’ city to contrast against the context of the urban environment. There is a growing

awareness for the importance of conservation and ‘green issues’; The Singapore Tourist

Board when creating Marina Bay Sands ensured that greenery would play a significant role.

The nature park, Gardens by the Bay was created from 250 acres of reclaimed land, and was

opened in 2012. Gardens by the Bay is part of a strategy by the STB to transform Singapore

from a "Garden City" to a "City in a Garden". Gardens by the Bay is a major attraction in

Singapore and having it located in the integrated resort of Marina Bay Sands undoubtedly

helps with visiting numbers. Adding greenery is a move away from what has the potential to

be seen as a concrete jungle and makes the area of Marina Bay Sands more attractive. Not

only does it help the environment for the inhabitants of Singapore, but it is also a timeless

attraction that cannot be ‘outgrown’ by society. Gardens by the Bay is just another example

of how the PAP and STB plan tourism in Singapore with great care –with F1 racing to

increase Singapore’s profile; casinos to increase economic gains; and the creation of iconic

landmarks like Gardens by the Bay to ensure it becomes a recognisable icon of Singapore.

Late Sentosa

Soon after the development of Marina Bay Sands, Sentosa was scheduled for a re-

development and an upgrade. Although the original purpose-built tourist island of Sentosa

delivered on its initial promise of increasing tourism, over time popularity again began to

decrease as it became outdated. On April 28, 2006, a plan for a new refurbishment was

launched for Sentosa. The project was led by Genting International, resulting in the creation

of the official integrated resort named Resorts World Sentosa, which opened January 2010.

Despite formerly having aspects and a core of an integrated resort, it was previously 67 Ho, Changing landscapes of Singapore. 250

32

government funded, thus by turning it to a resort and having a company help redesign it has

been far more fitting for the needs of Singapore as it was invested by a world class resort

brand. The upgraded island boasts two casinos, a Universal Studios theme park, Adventure

Cove Water park, and S.E.A Aquarium, which includes the world’s largest oceanarium. This

cost Resorts World S$3 billion worth of contracts68, illustrating how much Singapore is

willing to encourage the investment in these integrated resorts in order to make it competitive

with neighbouring countries, such as Hong Kong and Macau.

Sentosa was a different type of integrated resort from Marina Bay Sands. It was part

of an upgrade process and had been suggested since 198569. The upgrade and re-branding of

the island helped to increase the visiting numbers to the integrated resort, from 3.8 million in

the fiscal year 2001-2002 to 5.2 million in the fiscal years 2005-200670'. One could argue that

Sentosa is a more conventional integrated resort, and although it holds world class activities,

it was not necessarily built to create a ‘buzz’ like Marina Bay. The island of Sentosa has long

been a tourist destination, and making it an integrated resort merely enhanced and boosted its

potential, whereas Marina Bay Sands was a planned tourism creation; whether that was for

economic purposes or global standing is to be debated or a collaboration of both is disputed.

Conclusion

This chapter has illustrated how in a more connected world, tourism has played a greater

economic role, with new countries being increasingly accessible. Competition to create a

tourism hub is ever-growing and can play a large role in a country’s economy. Consequently,

projects that have the potential for high economic returns are prioritised. 71 This is shown

through integrated resorts as they include casinos, theme parks, shops, hotels, amongst other

attractions. In conclusion, this section has shown that the initial purpose for the creation of an

integrated resort was primarily to serve as an efficient, multi-purpose area which would

therefore serve as an asset to the economy. However, more recently, global status now plays a

role and integrated resorts are used to improve this.

68 ’IR operators unfazed by recession woes’ Today, 13 October 2008 accessed February 28, 201669 ‘Sentosa casino will draw tourists ‘The Straits Times, 10 June 1985 accessed February 25, 201670 ‘Sentosa casino will draw tourists’ The Straits Times, 10 June 1985 accessed February 25 ,201671 Wong, Yuen, and Goldblum, Spatial planning for a sustainable Singapore. 76

33

Conclusion

Singapore has a history of being an economically driven country. Even in its pre-colonial

days, it was an island that revolved around trade, leveraging its strategic placement on the

Straits of Melaka. More recently, Singapore still maintains its strong trade links and is an

important world port, but with a dense population it must find other channels through which

it can deliver on its promise of economic prosperity. This dissertation has argued that

tourism is one such example, acting as a key sector for Singapore due to the significant

contribution it makes to Singapore’s economy. Moreover, tourism can be an important

component in Singapore’s strategies for cultural preservation or increasing its global stature -

but underlying these goals is the economic benefit that tourism provides.

This argument is in line with Henderson, with the idea that tourism planning in

Singapore has been principally shaped by economics, with the hope of capitalising on the

financial rewards of the tourist industry poses72. While on the surface the three case studies of

different aspects of tourism may have alternate themes or aims, there is an underlying notion

of their economic importance to Singapore. Heritage sites have been protected and conserved

not solely for their cultural and historical importance to the country, but also because of their

economic value as a tourist attraction – indeed, without such careful conservation it is likely

that Singapore would lose much of its image as gateway to the “mystic orient”. Chapter Two

showed the importance of economics more directly, explaining how tourism is one of the

major catalysts in driving the opening of purpose-built shopping centres and encouraging a

consumerist culture that is aimed at tourists in particular. The final chapter has shown how

multidimensional tourism involves embracing a variety of forms, but one of the key focuses

of an integrated resort is that it is self-contained and multi-purpose. As a result, it is able to

extract additional value from visitors while also providing greater convenience and luxurious

amenities.

72 Henderson et al Shopping, tourism and retailing in Singapore. 131

34

This dissertation has therefore shown that throughout Singapore’s short history as an

independent state, tourism has evolved through different stages depending on what is most

profitable at the time and what the PAP believes will be profitable in the future. This essay

has also shown how economically driven tourism in Singapore is. It is a fundamental

component of Singapore’s economy, and throughout the latter half of the 20th century

Singapore has had to carefully navigate the associated risks of redevelopment in order to

satisfy tourism’s needs. Looking to the future, it seems likely that such care will need to

continue if Singapore is to sustainably nurture tourism as one of its vital components of

economic growth.

35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Newspapers

‘A case for keeping a sense of history’ The Straits Times, 16 August 1981, Page 11 Accessed

February 12, 2016

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19810816-1.2.72.1.aspx

‘A ‘paradise Island’’, The Straits Times January 23, 1969 p10. Accessed April 16, 2016

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19690123-1.2.20.aspx

‘Age no excuse for pulling down our heritage’ The Straits Times, 21 April 1979, Page 17

Accessed March 2, 2016


‘At least save front row of traditional buildings’ The Straits Times, January 3, 1971, 12

accessed March 3, 2016


‘Board to drive home the importance of tourism’ The Straits Times, 24 October 1984, Page

12 Accessed February 21, 2016


‘Chinatown a 'real life' attraction for everyone’ The Straits Times, 4 February 1985, Page 12


http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19850204-

1.2.25.15.aspx

36








‘Different IR requirements for Sentosa’ Today - Afternoon Edition, 26 April 2006, Page 9


http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20060426-2.2.8.6.aspx

‘Don't preserve old city just to please tourists’ The Straits Times, 19 June 1982, Page 14



‘High-Rollers From China’ Reuters. 9 April, 2013 accessed March 12, 2016

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-casinos-idUSBRE93900R20130410

"How Retail Sector Will Benefit From Singapore's $24.5B Tourism Receipts Target". 2013.

Singapore Business Review. Accessed February 27, 2016

http://sbr.com.sg/hotels-tourism/news/how-retail-sector-will-benefit-singapores-245b-

tourism-receipts-target#sthash.kJhpNxgv.dpuf.

Dining & Retail”. Stb.Gov.Sg. 2016 accessed March 12,

2016 https://www.stb.gov.sg/industries/dining-and-retail.

‘INTEGRATED RESORTS AT A GLANCE’ Today - Afternoon Edition, 19 April 2005,

Page 1. Accessed February 15, 2016


37


https://www.stb.gov.sg/industries/dining-and-retail

http://sbr.com.sg/hotels-tourism/news/how-retail-sector-will-benefit-singapores-245b-tourism-receipts-target#sthash.kJhpNxgv.dpuf

http://sbr.com.sg/hotels-tourism/news/how-retail-sector-will-benefit-singapores-245b-tourism-receipts-target#sthash.kJhpNxgv.dpuf

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-casinos-idUSBRE93900R20130410



‘IR bidders briefed on tourism, planning goals in S'pore’ Today, 19 November 2005, Page 6



‘IR guide – November it is’ Today - Afternoon Edition, 28 September 2005, Page 9 Accessed

March 4, 2016 http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20050928-

2.2.4.2.aspx

‘IR operators unfazed by recession woes’ Today, 13 October 2008, Accessed

February 16, 2016 http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20081013-

1.2.64.4.aspx

‘It's not a waste of money’ Today - Afternoon Edition, 5 August 2005, Page 8 Accessed


2.2.11.3.aspx

‘Keep old parts of city, urge planners’ The Straits Times, 12 August 1981, Page 10 Accessed

February 21, 2016


‘Leaving a little of Chinatown’ New Nation, 14 July 1976, Page 8 Accessed February 25,

2016

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/newnation19760714-1.2.58.aspx

38

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/newnation19760714-1.2.58.aspx









‘Marina Bay brand is more than just a name’ Today, 27 July 2005, Page 22 Accessed


2.2.52.6.aspx

‘Preserving history in the byways of Singapore’ The Straits Times, 28 March 1969 Accessed

March 2, 2016


‘Sentosa pleasure island will have Pirates Cove’ The Straits Times 32. March 24, 1972.


http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19720324.2.110.aspx

‘SENTOSA: THE ISLAND OF ENDLESS DELIGHTS’ Today - Afternoon Edition, 30

March 2007, Page 41 Accessed March 26, 2016

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20070330-2.2.52.aspx

‘STPB changes sales pitch after 11 years’. The Straits Times, January 5,1996). p. 3 accessed

March 14, 2016


‘STPB notes "miniature city' call’ The Straits Times, 20 July 1988, Page 24 Accessed March

8, 2016 http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19880720-

1.2.44.5.aspx

‘The big battle for tourists hots up’ New Nation, 8 August 1974, Page 16 Accessed February

25, 2016 http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/newnation19740808-

39

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/newnation19740808-1.2.34.4.aspx




http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20070330-2.2.52.aspx

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19720324.2.110.aspx




1.2.34.4.aspx

"Urban Redevelopment Authority". 2016. Ura.Gov.Sg. Accessed April 1.

https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/.

‘Will Singapore attract its 5-millionth visitor in 1990?’ The Straits Times, 16 December 1985,

Page 18 Accessed April 3, 2016


‘What's in our name? A lot of tourists’ New Nation, 8 June 1971, Page 5 Accessed February

28, 2016 http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/newnation19710608-

1.2.30.1.aspx

‘Why Singapore embraced integrated resorts" Daily FT, 13 November 2013 " accessed

March 8, 2016 http://www.ft.lk/2013/11/13/why-singapore-embraced-integrated-resorts/

‘$11.5m to develop Sentosa.’ The Straits Times, March 27. 1971 accessed April 16, 2016


Primary Sources

About STB". 2016. Stb.Gov.Sg. Accessed March 13, 2016 https://www.stb.gov.sg/about-stb

Destination Singapore. 1996. Singapore: Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. 18

40

https://www.stb.gov.sg/about-stb


http://www.ft.lk/2013/11/13/why-singapore-embraced-integrated-resorts/




https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/


Epigram - Singapore Tourism Board". 2005, accessed March 12, 2016

https://www.stb.gov.sg/news-and-publications/publications/Documents/X1STBAR-0405-

UniqueMomentsinaUniqueYear.pdf.

Singapore Tourist Promotion board, Annual Report, 1985

Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, Survey of Overseas Visitors to Singapore, Singapore,

1982-91

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG ON INTEGRATED RESORT

ON MONDAY, 18 APRIL 2005 AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE accessed April 12, 2016

https://www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/Documents/Ministerial%20Statement%20-%20PM

%2018apr05.pdf

STB Corporate Annual Report 07/08. 2008. Singapore. Accessed February 01, 2016

https://www.stbtrc.com.sg/Passport/X1STBCorporateAnnualReport-07_08.pdf

STB Corporate Annual Report 11/12. 2008. Singapore. Accessed April 20, 2016

https://www.stb.gov.sg/news-and-publications/publications/Documents/stb_ar_2012.pdf

Secondary Sources

Chang, T.C. Milne, Simon; Fallon, Dale & Pohlmann, Corrine. Urban heritage tourism:

exploring the global-local nexus. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2): 1996. 284-305,

41

https://www.stb.gov.sg/news-and-publications/publications/Documents/stb_ar_2012.pdf

https://www.stbtrc.com.sg/Passport/X1STBCorporateAnnualReport-07_08.pdf

https://www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/Documents/Ministerial%20Statement%20-%20PM%2018apr05.pdf

https://www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/Documents/Ministerial%20Statement%20-%20PM%2018apr05.pdf

https://www.stb.gov.sg/news-and-publications/publications/Documents/X1STBAR-0405-UniqueMomentsinaUniqueYear.pdf

https://www.stb.gov.sg/news-and-publications/publications/Documents/X1STBAR-0405-UniqueMomentsinaUniqueYear.pdf

Chang, T. C. From “instant Asia” to “multifaceted jewel”: urban imagining, strategy and

tourism development in Singapore. Urban Geography, 18(6): 1997. 542-564,

Chang, T.C. "Regionalism and Tourism: Exploring Integral Links in Singapore". Asia Pacific

Viewpoint 39 (1): 1998.73-94. doi:10.1111/1467-8373.00054.

Chang, T. C. "Local Uniqueness in The Global Village: Heritage Tourism in Singapore". The

Professional Geographer 51 (1): 1999. 91-103. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00149.

Chang, T. C. & Raguraman, K. Singapore tourism: capital ambitions and regional

connections. IN Teo, Peggy; Chang, T. C. & Ho, K. C., eds. Interconnected worlds: tourism

in Southeast Asia Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 2001. Pp. 47-63.

Chew, Ging Lee Tourism, trade, and income: evidence from Singapore, Anatolia, 23:3, 2012

348-358. DOI:10.1080/13032917.2012.701596

Cochrane, J. Asian tourism: Growth and change. Amsterdam; London: Elsevier, 2008.

Dale, Ole Johan. Urban Planning In Singapore. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press,

1999.

Go, F. and Jenkins, C. Tourism and Economic development in Asia and Australia.

PINTER,1997. pp.237-254.

Hack, Karl, Jean-Louis Margolin, and Karine Delaye. Singapore from Temasek to The 21St

Century. Singapore: NUS Press. 2010

42

Henderson, J. Planning, Changing Landscapes and Tourism in Singapore. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 2005 pp.123-135.

Jamal, Tazim, and Mike Robinson. The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. Los Angeles:

SAGE. 2009

Henderson, J., Chee, L., Mun, C. and Lee, C.. Shopping, tourism and retailing in

Singapore. Managing Leisure 2011

Ho, E. Changing landscapes of Singapore.: Old Tensions, New Discoverries. NUS Press.

2013

Hornby, W.F and E.M Fyfe.. "This Changing World: Tourism For Tomorrow: Singapore

Looks To The Future". Geographical Association 75 (1): 1990. 58-62.

Jamal, Tazim, and Mike Robinson.. The SAGE Handbook Of Tourism Studies. Los Angeles:

SAGE. 2009

Khan, Habidullah, Chou Fee Seng, and Wong Kwei Cheong. 2016. "The Social Impact Of

Tourism On Singapore". The Service Industries Journal, 541-548. Accessed April 20.

Kim, K., Kwok, K. and Wee, C.. Rethinking Chinatown and heritage conservation in

Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society. 2000

43

Koolhaas, R., Mau, B., Sigler, J. and Werlemann, H. Small, medium, large, extra-large. New

York, N.Y.: Monacelli Press. 1998

Lee, Pamelia. Singapore, Tourism & Me. Singapore: Pamelia Lee Pte Ltd. 2004

Picard Michel and Wood Robert E., eds. Tourism, ethnicity, and the state in Asian and

Pacific societies. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997. Pp. 71-98

Low, Linda . Competitiveness of Singapore's services sector: tourism and related services.

Singapore: Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore, 2000. 1

vol.

Lyon, S., & Wells, E. C.,. Global tourism: Cultural heritage and economic encounters.

Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. 2012

Savage, V., Huang, S. and Chang, T The Singapore River thematic zone: sustainable tourism

in an urban context. The Geographical Journal, 170(3), 2004 pp.212-225.

Seng, Ooi Can. "State– Civil Society Relations And Tourism: Singaporeanizing Tourists,

Touristifying Singapore". Journal Of Social Issues In Southeast Asia 20 (2): 2005. 249-272.

doi:10.1355/sj20-2f.

Hall, C. Michael & Page, Stephen, eds. Tourism in South and Southeast Asia: issues and

cases / Boston : Butterworth Heinemann, 1999. Pp. 117-128.

Teo, P. Changing landscapes of Singapore. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. 2004

44

Trocki, C.. Singapore. London: Routledge. 2006

Wong, T., Yuen, B. and Goldblum, C. Spatial planning for a sustainable Singapore. New

York: Springer. 2008

Yeung, Yue-man. National Development Policy And Urban Transformation In Singapore.

Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography. 1973

Yuen, Belinda, and Ng Tze Hock.. "Urban Conservation In Singapore: Tradition Or Tourist

Bane?". Planning Practice And Research 16 (1): 2001 39-50.

doi:10.1080/02697450120049551.

45

Declaration

I have read and understood regulations 17.9 of the Regulations for students of the

School of Oriental and African Studies concerning plagiarism. I undertake that all

material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me,

in whole or in part by any other person(s). I undertake that any quotation or

paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly

acknowledged in the work, which I now present for examination. I understand that I

must have prior approval before incorporating any coursework I have completed for

any previous qualification either at SOAS or elsewhere, and that any such previous

coursework is duly acknowledged in the dissertation now submitted. In the instance of

online submission, in addition to the above, I declare that any printed copies

submitted are identical in content to the electronic version.

Aimee Joan McClounan

46