Changing Landscapes of Singapore

Ho, Elaine Lynn-Ee, Wong Chih Yuan and Ramdas, Kamalini

Published by NUS Press Pte Ltd

Ho, Elaine Lynn-Ee, Wong Chih Yuan and Ramdas, Kamalini.

Changing Landscapes of Singapore: Old Tensions, New Discoveries.
New ed. NUS Press Pte Ltd, 2013.
Project MUSE. muse.jhu.edu/book/27560.

For additional information about this book

https://muse.jhu.edu/book/27560

[ Access provided at 10 Feb 2022 16:48 GMT from National University of Singapore ]
 2
Heritage Landscapes and
Nation-Building in Singapore
Hamzah Muzaini

Introduction
In an era of globalisation, as nations become less insular and people increasingly
mobile, forging identities that connect people to place has become more
challenging than before. This chapter highlights how heritage is mobilised in
Singapore to fulfil this objective. After discussing key concepts and providing
an account of heritage conservation in Singapore, the chapter draws upon
the examples of historic districts and landscapes of war commemoration to
illustrate the way heritage is used as material and ideological capital to bind
people to territory as well as cultivate national attachments. The chapter
then focuses on how this process is fraught with tensions particularly when
heritage is used as ballast against rampant modernisation and urban growth
in a country that is not only constrained by history and geography, but also
facing the challenges of achieving global aspirations. The chapter concludes
with prospects for further research.

Heritage, Nation-Building and Landscape Politics

Heritage may be defined as a legacy of the past existing within contemporary
times that society wishes to preserve for the benefit of the present as well

25

02 C-Landscapes.indd 25 7/30/13 10:17:21 AM

 26 Hamzah Muzaini

as to pass on to future generations. It includes both tangible (e.g. built

environment and material artefacts) as well as intangible elements (e.g. social
practices, myths and legends). Far from existing a priori, heritage is accorded
significance if and only if society deems it as valuable. As Graham (2002:
1004) puts it, “if heritage is the contemporary use of the past, and if its
meanings are defined in the present, then we create the heritage that we
require” (my emphasis). Many scholars have focused on the ways in which
heritage is appropriated spatially for the purpose of constructing the nation,
or what Benedict Anderson (1983) refers to as an “imagined community”
(refer to Chapter 1). Among others, heritage serves to reflect a shared past,
portray heroic acts as historical inspiration, or manifest ideals that those
in power wish for the nation to internalise (Ashworth 2003; Timothy and
Boyd 2006).
As discussed in the introductory chapter, individuals and groups in power,
such as the state, manipulate landscapes as spatial and material expressions
of ideological objectives. The concretisation of heritage onto public space
not only allows it to be visually perceived but also made accessible to the
general public to learn from and “access” the messages they represent. Yet, as
Timothy and Boyd (2006: 3) remind us, “there is no such thing as a single
history”, as each view of the past and each way of presenting it within the
present is subjective and will vary between different individuals and groups.
In privileging one vision or version of heritage, other narratives consequently
fall on the wayside (or, worse, become erased), particularly those perceived
as controversial, mundane or undermining state objectives. As such, far from
being a true depiction of the past, heritage as represented through landscapes
is partial, serving the needs of the present while ensuring aspects that do not
align themselves with dominant narratives are de-emphasised or even written
out of official history (ibid.).
The extent to which such projects may attain ideological purchase,
however, depends on whether the people for whom they are intended buy
into them. If people are not convinced of the messages the state seeks to
forward via its heritage landscapes, the selection of a particular past as national
history may not gain popular acceptance (Graham 2002). Contestations
towards these landscapes can emerge from within or outside of the territorial
boundaries of the nation. They often arise with respect to questions over
what to conserve of the past, for what, by and for whom, which may be
further vexed by contentions over historical facts, ethnicity or other divisive
fault lines of society. Challenges may also arise when conservation contradicts

02 C-Landscapes.indd 26 7/30/13 10:17:21 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 27

economic imperatives such as promoting tourism and maintaining global

competitiveness. After providing a background to heritage conservation in
Singapore, the rest of the chapter discusses the way historic districts and war
commemoration landscapes are mobilised in the service of nation-building
for the city-state and the tensions resulting from such policies.

Shifting Sands of Heritage Conservation in Singapore

With the exception of the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB), formed
in 1971 to gazette monuments worthy of preservation, the conservation of
Singapore’s urban built environment took a back seat to other more pressing
concerns in the first two decades after its independence in 1965. Faced with
critical “bread-and-butter” issues of providing housing and employment,
and driven by modernisation as the main engine of development, issues
of heritage were seen as luxuries the island state could ill afford. Hence
much of Singapore’s physical and socio-cultural remnants of the past were
destroyed by the new order, helmed by the People’s Action Party (PAP),
to optimise scarce resources and embed new memories based on the
erasure of what had been. As Chua (1995: 227‒8) puts it, “Singapore
was then not a society which fondly looked at its past or present but one
looking to change for the better”. Sidelining the past was also symptomatic
of the state’s intentions to shed memories of its time under British rule
(1819‒1965), the trauma of the Japanese occupation (1942‒45) and the
troubles that characterised the early postcolonial years (such as the ethnic
riots of 1964 and 1969). These were better forgotten than confronted,
especially when they were still fresh in people’s minds (see Devan and
Heng 1994).
It was only from the 1980s onwards that the state became more aware
of the importance of preserving heritage for nation-building. The loss of
familiar landscapes in an ever changing urban environment and the stress
wrought by a frenzied pace of life in pursuit of progress not only made
Singaporeans lose their bearings but also nostalgic for a much simpler life
(Chua 1995). The move towards heritage preservation was also seen as a
rampart against forces of Westernisation and relentless modernity that have
taken a toll on what Singapore stands for as an “Asian” society (Beaumont
2009). In addition, the state began to recognise that Singapore resembled
a country afflicted with amnesia, where the “[y]oung don’t know enough
about the past” (The Straits Times 9 September 1996). Further, it may

02 C-Landscapes.indd 27 7/30/13 10:17:21 AM

 28 Hamzah Muzaini

have felt that enough time had passed such that historical elements that
had once seemed difficult for the nation to remember no longer posed a
challenge as society matures and is now able to confront these without
negative emotional or social repercussions. These arguments provided the
impetus for the state to ensure history becomes more firmly imprinted onto
the minds of its citizenry.
There is also an economic angle to the shift in official attitudes towards
the past and its (material) legacy. First, Singapore experienced a fall in
tourism numbers during the decade as the state’s modernisation project had
resulted in parts of the island looking clinically similar to other international
cities and culturally uninteresting as it sheds its “Asianness” (Yuen 2006;
Sin, this edition). This was further compounded by public criticisms that
expressed Singapore had become “troublingly antiseptic”, “soulless” and a
symbol of “bland modernity” (Beaumont 2009: 307). These resulted in an
upsurge in popular sentiment on the need to preserve the past, not only
by Singaporean history enthusiasts but also by foreign visitors advocating
for the conservation of Singapore’s remaining heritage landscapes, specifically
the ones that reflect the nation’s distinct identity as well as those that are
associated with the war years. Thus, heritage landscapes became the ideal
apparatus to not only augment Singapore’s “Oriental mystique” and supplement
its stock of tourist attractions (Chang and Yeoh 1999: 104), but also to
appease the groundswell of desire, within the nation as well as emerging
from beyond, in support of heritage conservation. Given such economic,
as well as the social and cultural imperatives highlighted earlier, the state
began to roll back its “demolish-and-rebuild philosophy” that guided urban
development previously.
A Tourism Task Force was set up in 1984 to translate heritage areas into
tourism assets, followed by the Committee on Heritage in 1988 tasked with
proposing measures that will encourage Singaporeans to be more informed
and appreciative of their multi-cultural heritage (The Committee on Heritage
Report 1988). The National Heritage Board (NHB) was established in 1993
as steward of Singapore’s heritage (landscapes) while the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA) took on the agenda of restoring “variety to our streetscapes


Amongst these is the Singapore Heritage Society that was set up in 1987 to promote aware-
ness and organise educational programmes on local history and sites. It advocates for the
preservation and stewardship of such historical sites.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 28 7/30/13 10:17:22 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 29

and modulate the scale of our urban fabric, creating the visual contrast
and excitement within the city while protecting important reminders and
representations of our past” (URA
2011). For the URA, this mission Adaptive reuse refers to the process
statement translated into a commitment of maintaining the external
façades of buildings (particularly
to adaptive reuse as a means of restoring
those with historical, symbolic or
and upgrading old buildings to meet
architectural merit) while allowing
modern living needs and to make for major structural and interior
them more relevant in today’s societal modifications to take place in
context. Buildings retaining old uses support of new uses.
underwent extensive modifications to
allow for intensification of use and modernisation. The Singapore Tourism
Board (STB) was also tasked with refashioning heritage and repackaging
heritage sites to establish Singapore as a global tourism hub.
These shifts resulted in a sustained and concerted effort to ensure that
what was left of Singapore’s tangible and intangible heritage is salvaged from
obscurity while instilling in Singaporeans a greater awareness and appreciation
of their past and cultures. Since the turnaround, the prominence of heritage
landscapes has increased in the city-state, in the form of conserved areas,
preserved sites and buildings of historical interest, monuments and memorials,
street-names as well as within museums. The foci of these landscapes range
from those that showcase Singapore’s shared colonial and post-independence
legacy (e.g. Fort Canning Hill and Singapore History Museum) to ones that
reflect the unique cultures of particular ethnic groups within the nation (e.g.
Bukit Brown Chinese Cemetery and Peranakan Place). Collectively, they
function as pedagogical tools to allow Singaporeans to engage with the past
and develop a more consistent and familiar sense of where they live, and act
as a means of attracting visitors and establishing the country as a key tourism
player on the global stage (refer to Chapter 13). These objectives however do
not always sit well with each other. The following sections draw on examples
of two types of heritage landscapes, namely historic and cultural districts,
and sites commemorating Singapore’s involvement in the Second World War
(Figure 1)—to demonstrate some of the issues that have emerged. Particular
emphasis is given to the fissures caused by the contradictory goals of using
heritage landscapes to cultivate national cohesion and simultaneously fulfil
Singapore’s aspirations of becoming a global city, here understood as the
ability to attract foreigners into the country as tourism visitors and residents
(refer to Chapter 8).

02 C-Landscapes.indd 29 7/30/13 10:17:22 AM

 Figure 1  Selected heritage landscapes in Singapore

Source: Author’s personal collection.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 30 7/30/13 10:17:27 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 31

Historic and Cultural Districts

According to the Committee on Heritage Report (1988: 46), built heritage
is of significant interest as without “visual landmarks […] all other records
of the past remain abstract notions, difficult to understand and link to the
present”. This pertains to the importance of physical landscapes as a means
of enabling Singaporeans to appreciate their past in a tangible way. The
URA’s Conservation Master Plan (URA 1985) regarded sites like Chinatown,
Kampong Glam (former seat of Malay royalty), Little India and Boat Quay
as representative of Singapore’s historical and multicultural heritage. The
designation of these areas as historic districts entails not only the preservation
of salient landmarks, but also the retention of the urban fabric and socio-
cultural and economic identity of the area more generally. In Kampong
Glam, for example, this includes the preservation of Sultan Mosque as well
as its surroundings that reflect the district’s Malay-Muslim character. This
marked an improvement over the earlier PMB practice of selecting individual
monuments that then became removed from their historical context as the
urban areas around them are demolished and rebuilt.
Historic districts, first and foremost, juxtapose images of modern
Singapore with the old so as to represent Singapore’s forward-looking vision
although not at the detriment of its past. They serve as memory anchors for
Singaporeans, especially the older generations, for whom the visual and temporal
continuity in the urban landscape is critical for rooting them emotionally
in an ever-evolving urban backdrop (Chua 1995). Second, historic districts
reflect how Singapore and its people were like before. The area along the
Boat Quay, with its restored shophouses and art installations that speak of
Singapore’s early colonial years, remind visitors of former residents, old trades
and ubiquitous characters that used to ply there. Storyboards and heritage
centres, such as the Heritage Centre in Chinatown and a heritage gallery in
Little India, were also established to allow the young to learn from the past
and be inspired by the pioneering enterprise of their forefathers, depicted as
contributing much to the economic development of early Singapore. Thus,
historic districts “provide relief from the monotony of a high-rise cityscape”
and “serve the socio-political purpose of binding Singaporeans to place, the city,
and ultimately and vicariously, to the ‘nation’” (Teo et al. 2004: 113).
Third, historic districts are vehicles through which Singapore’s plural
society may be portrayed. Kampong Glam, Little India and Chinatown were
separate living quarters marked out—as part of the colonial “divide-and-rule”
approach to prevent ethnic clashes—by the British in 1822 for the Malays,
Indians and Chinese respectively. Today, however, they are forwarded as
a showcase of the nation’s multicultural heritage, in line with Singapore’s

02 C-Landscapes.indd 31 7/30/13 10:17:28 AM

 32 Hamzah Muzaini

“4M ideology”, to “give a sense of place and identity to the country and its
citizens” (Chang 2000: 351). Although each site is specific to the heritage of
different ethnic groups in Singapore, traces of Singapore’s cultural heterogeneity
are also palpable, such as in the places of worship used by various religious
denominations (Figure 2). Historic districts are also celebrated on special
occasions such as the lights display in Little India to mark the annual
festival of lights celebrated by the Indian community. The provision of space
for the major ethnic groups also portrays the PAP’s impartiality and even-
handedness in managing local heritage, which is harnessed to “inculcat[e]
patriotic sentiments about a Singapore homeland”, and invoke “feelings of
gratitude for government stewardship” (Henderson 2008: 336‒7).
Historic districts are also vehicles through which Singapore maintains
a distinct character (from other globalising cities) so as to enhance its
tourism appeal. This is clear from the way the STB is heavily involved in
the development of these districts, as “part of the city’s strategy to carve out

Figure 2  Sri Mariamman Temple and Jamae Mosque in Chinatown, Singapore

Source: Author’s personal collection.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 32 7/30/13 10:17:36 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 33

a specialised niche as an international business and service centre”, which

includes developing its tourism potential (Teo et al. 2004: 112). Since the
late 1990s, for example, the STB (in conjunction with NHB) has sought to
enhance the visitor experience in Chinatown by setting up thematic streets
and organising street performances to represent different aspects of the historic
area. In Kampong Glam, the Malay Heritage Centre was established to
showcase Malay culture in Singapore, along with installing a pedestrianised
area, storyboards and various heritage trails (The Straits Times 28 July 2010).
Individually or collectively, historic districts have become central to the state’s
attempt to portray the city-state’s multiculturalism and bolster its tourism
industry by selling Singapore as “a city of many colours and contrasts, cultures
and cuisines” (Yeoh and Kong 1994: 29).
Public reactions to these state-driven attempts to re-assert Singapore’s
heritage through the historic districts have been ambivalent. For older
Singaporeans who witnessed many of the nation’s original buildings and
landscapes fall prey to the bulldozer, the historic districts were seen as “pastiche
motifs of the past”, rather than “receptacles of collective memory” (Jones and
Shaw 2006: 126). Exorbitant rents had also rooted out many of the traditional
trades and skills-people to become replaced by modern-day businesses that
do not fit into the original character of the enclaves. The URA’s strategy
of “adaptive reuse” was also seen to detract from the true spirit of place and
the overall integrity of the environment. In Chinatown, for instance, the
older generation lament the loss of “the traditional makers of paper houses
and cars for ancestor prayer offerings, the barber who cuts hair in the back
lane, the old coffeeshops where residents gather to chit chat” (The Straits Times
16 October 1991, cited in Teo et al. 2004: 114). The resettlement of former
residents has also meant the disappearance of quotidian activities that used
to grace the streets such that “very little of the socio-cultural environment
of the past, the people, the sights and the smells of the area were preserved”
(Teo et al. 2004: 12–45). Clearly, not everyone is convinced that historic
districts are a useful means of forging rootedness for the people.
Other critics argue that historic districts have become too catered to
non-Singaporeans such that local Singaporeans no longer feel that these
landscapes are for them (Chang 2000:
347). Chinatown, for example, has Gentrification takes place when
been referred to as a “commercialised areas are conserved and restored
in such a way as to cater more
tourist trap” because of the many
to high- and middle-class target
shops that target tourist consumption.
groups, thus displacing low-income
Gentrification in these districts also
residents.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 33 7/30/13 10:17:37 AM

 34 Hamzah Muzaini

means that less affluent Singaporeans are unable to frequent the retail
establishments there (Chang 2000: 354). As for Kampong Glam, despite the
prohibition of businesses such as pubs, bars and nightclubs along designated
streets because of the area’s Malay-Muslim character (URA 2005), alcohol-
serving establishments continue to spring up elsewhere in the district, much
to the annoyance of a few members from the Malay community (The Straits
Times 7 August 2011). The influx of unskilled foreigners to supplement
the Singaporean workforce also poses issues at historic districts such as
Little India. On weekends, South Asian labourers converge there to socialise,
shop, or carry out day-to-day affairs. The businesses in Little India cater to
their needs, which also contribute towards the ethnic identity of the district
(Figure 3). The contribution of these foreign workers to the nation’s development
is undeniable but the lack of dedicated socio-cultural landscapes for them
has meant the sporadic emergence of enclaves where they congregate, which
in turn triggers the resentment (some of a racist nature) of Singaporeans
(refer to Chapter 8).

Figure 3  South Asian foreign workers in Little India, Singapore

Source: Author’s personal collection.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 34 7/30/13 10:17:45 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 35

Another criticism that has been levelled towards the management of

historic districts pertains to a lack of sensitivity paid by state policies to the
complexities of local affiliations and salience. To cite one case, the arbitrary
delineation of the boundaries of Kampong Glam determines what gets
conserved or left to the mercy of urban development. But this boundary-
marking exercise revealed the difference between what the state and the local
Malay community sees as heritage. The demolition of the old Madrasah
Aljunied (in 1996, now standing on a smaller plot with the rest earmarked
as a park), for example, reflects how urban planners have betrayed their
ignorance of the sacred meanings associated with the land where the madrasah
sits; conversion into secular pursuits such as a park is seen as tantamount
to sacrilege (Teo et al. 2004). Tajudeen (2007) also highlights how URA’s
plans for the historic district has given
rise to a hyper-traditional district Hyper-traditional refers to
constructions of the past or what
that has been materially reinvented
is perceived as “traditional” in
and discursively represented in ways
ways that do not reflect what was
that obscure the historical context and actually happening on the ground.
reality of Kampong Glam. These reflect
a lack of due diligence on the part of the state, leading to Malays feeling
little sense of ownership towards a landscape associated with their identity;
this signals the limited extent to which historic districts may actually foster
Singaporeans’ place attachments to the nation.

Landscapes of War Commemoration

Since the late 1980s, the Singaporean state has shifted its stance regarding
the Second World War, from officially disavowing its involvement in the
global conflict to embracing it as a discourse of nation-building and for
the purpose of heritage tourism. While this coincides more generally to
the heritage movement going on in Singapore then, the shift may also be
attributed to the passing of the war generation such that lessons of the war
can no longer be passed on to younger Singaporeans through the family.
The passing of time also meant that the pain and difficulties of remembering
the war and the sensitive memories of the ethnic clashes that took place
then, can now be recalled and memorialised by Singaporeans. The result has
been the emergence of landscapes to remind Singapore’s young people of
events associated with the war, ranging from war museums to ceremonies,
monuments, preserved battlefields and other historic markers.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 35 7/30/13 10:17:46 AM

 36 Hamzah Muzaini

Three main narratives have evolved out of these sites in support of the
state’s nation-building objectives. The first narrative portrays the war as a
prelude to nationalism, liberating Asia from Western colonialism and awakening
Singaporeans to the need to “remember never again to be unprepared to
defend our own country, our families and our way of life” (The Straits Times
16 September 1995). The second centres on the harsh living conditions of
the people and how, regardless of race,
Singaporeans came together to survive “Race” is the official term used
to refer to the ethnic groups
the trials of the period. The third
represented in Singapore but there
narrative involves identifying national
is a conceptual distinction to be
war heroes from whom Singaporeans made between “race” and ethnicity.
can learn and be inspired (Hong and “Race” connotes biological origins
Huang 2003). One such hero is Adnan in phenotype whereas ethnicity
Saidi of the Malay Regiment who places emphasis on the socially
led his men into battle, his story of constructed nature of cultural
bravery is recounted at the Reflections categories (see Jackson and Penrose
at Bukit Chandu Museum (Figure 4). 1993). In Singapore, the main
The recognition of Singaporean heroes ethnic groups are Chinese, Malay
is a way of “localising” the war to make and Indian while residual ethnic
it more relevant. Another is by universal­ groups are placed under the
category of “Others”.
ising war narratives so that, even though

Figure 4  Façade of the Reflections at Bukit Chandu Museum

Source: Author’s personal collection.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 36 7/30/13 10:17:55 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 37

the main participants were foreign, Singaporeans can still extract values of
patriotism, discipline and courage from them (Muzaini and Yeoh 2005a).
In these ways, the state portrayed the war as a relevant ingredient in the
national recipe for citizenly cohesion.
While Singaporeans generally appreciate the significance of these sites,
some felt that representations of the war at the museums are geared towards
the experiences of the British and other foreign prisoners-of-war whereas local
representations are usually included merely as a “by the way” or “always in
passing” reference (Muzaini 2006: 219). This reiterates how official narratives
presented in many of the war museums in Singapore still privilege the war
as involving foreigners more than Singaporeans. It did not help of course
that the initial impetus for war remembrance in Singapore came about due
to pressure by foreign commemorators for the event to be marked, and
where the targeted audience for these sites are overseas war veterans and
their families (Henderson 2007). In postcolonial societies, the issue of whose
heritage warrants attention is often “complicated by questions as to how far
the colonial impress on the landscapes should be retained vis-à-vis indigenous
[war stories]” (Kong and Yeoh 1994: 256).
Even when war museums are made to be more representative of
local experiences, there have been criticisms over which ethnic groups are
represented. This is exemplified in the case of Reflections at Bukit Chandu
Museum. The expressed focus here is on the contributions made by the Malays
during the war in response to claims that many sites before this museum
emphasised the experiences of the Chinese. However, it is the contention
of the Malay community that their memory at the museum has been so
diluted as to render the site unsuccessful in correcting prior ethnic-biased
accounts that exclude the Malays and their roles during the Second World
War (Muzaini and Yeoh 2005a). This is reflective of the fates of minority
histories that tend to be overshadowed by more dominant representations,
in this case that of the Chinese. The location of the museum on an isolated
hill, despite this being close to where the actual battle of Pasir Panjang took
place (one of the main themes of the museum) has also been interpreted
as an official ploy to systematically erase the war memories of the Malay
community (Muzaini and Yeoh 2005a).
While the state intended for these war-related sites to bind its citizenry
together, research suggests that Singaporeans generally do not engage with
them as such. One study found that even though Singaporeans claim it is


Most of the Allied forces then were British, Dutch, Australians, Indians and Americans.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 37 7/30/13 10:17:55 AM

 38 Hamzah Muzaini

important to remember the war, most still see the war as removed from the
reality of today’s generation and “not personally relevant” to them (Muzaini
2006: 216). This might explain why Singaporeans have not been forthcoming
in participating in events that memorialise the war or even visit war-related
sites due to, among other factors, the lack of knowledge and time. Those
who visit war sites claim that they do it as part of compulsory school
excursions rather than out of personal choice. It has also been observed
that Singaporean visitors at the Changi Chapel and Museum tend to “speed
through” the museum unguided. Visitors complained that Singaporeans tend
to “behave like they [are] in a bloody zoo, chattering at the top of their
lungs and running despite being told to be respectful”, which marks for
these visitors “the failure [of ] many [locals] to understand what the place
represents” (Muzaini 2006: 217).
Furthermore, war commemoration in Singapore has engaged in limited
local public consultation. This could be due to many of these commemorative
events being the purview of foreign organisations; for example the British
High Commission organises annual ceremonies at the Kranji War Cemetery
and Memorial. But even events spearheaded by Singaporeans, such as the
Civilian War Memorial ceremony organised every year by the Singapore Chinese
Chamber of Commerce (in conjunction with state agencies), has invited only
lukewarm participation by other Singaporeans. According to one Singaporean,
“the monopoly that the state has on commemoration has served to deaden
or blunt people’s interest since the opportunity for locals to participate is
not readily available” (Muzaini 2006: 219). The sale of hats, T-shirts, and
other tourist memorabilia in the museum’s name has also invited criticism
that the Changi Chapel and Museum is a “commercial venture” that “[sits]
uneasily with its senses of remembrance” (Lunn 2007: 86). This serves as
yet another example of how heritage sites in Singapore may find themselves
caught between nation-building and tourism imperatives.
Any attempt to mark the Second World War locally is bound to be
tempered by criticisms emerging from beyond Singapore’s shores as the war
transcends geographical boundaries. Consider the new Changi Chapel and
Museum established in 2001: the centrepiece of the museum is a replica of a
chapel built originally by Australian internees; after the war they dismantled
the original to be brought back to Australia (now in Duntroon). Despite
the replica looking different from the original, the presence of two Changi
Chapels in the two countries has shed doubt on whether it is a heritage that
belongs to Singaporeans (Muzaini and Yeoh 2005b). The commemoration
of the Malay Regiment by Malaysia as “theirs” (due to a shared colonial

02 C-Landscapes.indd 38 7/30/13 10:17:55 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 39

history when Singapore was part of British Malaya) also raises questions over
the authenticity of Singapore’s claims over these heroes. This has definitely
discounted local ability to develop affinity with these sites as theirs and theirs
alone. It is not surprising therefore that when plans to demolish Changi
Prison, used to intern prisoners of war during the war, were announced as
part of prison redevelopment, it was the Australians who raised the most
noise; Singaporeans were generally nonchalant (Beaumont 2009).

Conclusion
Drawing on two types of heritage landscapes, this chapter addressed the
ways in which a shared history and rich cultural heritage have been
capitalised upon by the Singaporean state as a tool to anchor individuals
to the country and foster a sense of what it means to be a Singaporean.
At the same time, it also shows how heritage sites are promoted as a
resource to enhance Singapore’s attractiveness to foreign visitors by projecting
local ethnic and place identities as central components of “the city’s claim
to cultural distinctiveness” (Yuen 2006: 848). The process, however, has
not been without its challenges. One criticism has been levelled at the
selective and often exclusionary practices inherent in state-promoted heritage
landscapes although these are sometimes countered by heritage efforts
organised from the “ground up” to ensure what is officially forgotten is
remembered in other ways, such as within institutional museums and
independently organised heritage tours. Another pertains to the use of these
landscapes as a means of putting Singapore onto the global map (evidenced
by issues pertaining to the presence of tourists and foreign workers) while
still acting as a tool of nation-building. The reliance on its colonial past
(e.g. the war) has also resulted in questions over whether Singapore’s history
may even be exclusively seen as its own. This is then further exacerbated
by the on-going demands of urban growth particularly in the light of land
scarcity. One further avenue of investigation would be to examine if and
how the discussion on historic and cultural districts, and landscapes of
war commemoration, also speak to other types of heritage landscapes in
Singapore, such as by ways of street toponymy, national monuments and
natural heritage sites.
As Singapore runs out of space, it may be harder to justify safeguarding
what is left of its past. The time may come when heritage conservation,
despite its economic value, will have to give way to other imperatives of
retaining the city’s competitive edge in a globalising world. It is highly

02 C-Landscapes.indd 39 7/30/13 10:17:56 AM

 40 Hamzah Muzaini

unlikely, however, that the process will be an uncontested one. The focus of
this chapter is not to highlight “bottom up” approaches to the preservation
of local history and culture. Yet given the presence of pressure groups such
as the Singapore Heritage Society and the maturing of a Singaporean civil
society that has become more vocal in their desire for local heritage to be
safeguarded (Henderson 2011), there may yet be hope that the total loss
of our history (and attendant sites) can be mitigated if not altogether
arrested.

Discussion Questions
1. Explore a gazetted heritage landscape, take photographs of it and reflect
critically upon three aspects of this landscape that have been mobilised as
a narrative for nation-building purposes. Think of ways in which these
narratives may be contested by alternative views.
2. Analyse one way in which state-sanctioned landscapes of heritage may
be challenged by heritage-making practices “from-below” (e.g. via private
museums and tours, virtual community heritage sites or the advocacy work
of the Singapore Heritage Society). Highlight how this is accomplished
and evaluate how successful they have been.
3. Identify and document (through photographs, maps, archival or field
research) a heritage landscape that you feel has been officially “forgotten”
(e.g. Bukit Brown Cemetery, etc.). Creatively frame and argue how it is
in the Singaporean state’s best interest to gazette it for preservation.

Further Readings
1. For a detailed analysis of heritage preservation in Singapore: see Chang,
T.C. and Huang, S. (2005). “Recreating place, replacing memory:
Creative destruction at the Singapore River”. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 46
(3): 267–83.
2. For issues related to the promotion of a historical war site as a tourism
attraction: see Muzaini, H., Teo, P., and Yeoh, B.S.A. (2007). “Intimations
of postmodernity in dark tourism: The fate of history at Fort Siloso,
Singapore”. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 5 (1): 28–45.
3. For a discussion of a non-gazetted heritage landscape in Singapore:
see Shaw, B.J. and Ismail, R. (2006). “Ethnoscapes, entertainment and
heritage in the global city: Segmented spaces in Singapore’s Joo Chiat
Road”. Geojournal 66 (3): 187–98.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 40 7/30/13 10:17:56 AM

 Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore 41

References
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined community: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso.
Ashworth, G.J. (2003). “Heritage, identity and places: for tourists and host
communities”, in Tourism in destination communities, ed. S. Singh, D.J. Timothy
and R.K. Dowling. Wallingford: CABI, pp. 79–97.
Beaumont, J. (2009). “Contested trans-national heritage: The demolition of
Changi Prison, Singapore”. International Journal of Heritage Studies 15 (4):
298–316.
Chang, T.C. (1999). “New Asia-Singapore: Communicating local cultures through
global tourism”. Geoforum 30: 101–15.
——— (2000). “Singapore’s Little India: A tourist attraction as a contested
landscape”. Urban Studies 37 (2): 343–66.
Chua, B.H. (1995). “That imagined space: Nostalgia for kampungs”, in A portrait of
places: History, community and identity, ed. B.S.A. Yeoh and L. Kong. Singapore:
Singapore Times Editions, pp. 222–41.
Devan, J. and Heng, G. (1994). “A minimum working hypothesis of democracy for
Singapore”, in Debating Singapore: Reflective essays, ed. D. de Cunha. Singapore:
ISEAS, pp. 22–6.
Graham, B. (2002). “Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture?” Urban Studies 39:
1003–17.
Henderson, J.C. (2007). “Remembering the Second World War in Singapore: Wartime
heritage as a visitor attraction”. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2 (1): 36–52.
——— (2008). “Managing urban ethnic heritage: Little India in Singapore”.
International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (4): 332–46.
——— (2011). “Understanding and using built heritage: Singapore’s national
monuments and conservation areas”, International Journal of Heritage Studies
17 (1): 46–61.
Hong, L. and Huang, J.L. (2003). “The scripting of Singapore’s national heroes:
Toying with Pandora’s box”, in New terrains in Southeast Asian history, ed. A.T.
Ahmad and L.E. Tan. Singapore: Singapore University Press, pp. 219–48.
Jackson, P. and Penrose, J., eds. (1993). Constructions of race, place and nation.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Jones, R. and Shaw, B.J. (2006). “Palimpsests of progress: Erasing the past and
rewriting the future in developing societies – Case studies of Singapore and
Jakarta”. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12 (2): 122–38.
Kong, L. and Yeoh, B.S.A. (1994). “Urban conservation in Singapore: A survey of
state policies and popular attitudes”. Urban Studies 31 (2): 247–65.
Lunn, K. (2007). “War memorialisation and public heritage in Southeast Asia: Some
case studies and comparative reflections”. International Journal of Heritage Studies
13 (1): 81–95.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 41 7/30/13 10:17:56 AM

 42 Hamzah Muzaini

Muzaini, H. (2006). “Producing/consuming memoryscapes: The genesis/politics of

Second World War commemoration in Singapore”. Geojournal 66 (3): 211–22.
Muzaini, H. and Yeoh, B. (2005a). “War landscapes as ‘battlefields’ of collective
memories: Reading the Reflections at Bukit Chandu, Singapore”. Cultural
Geographies 12 (3): 345–65.
——— (2005b). “Contesting ‘local’ commemoration of the Second World War: The
case of the Changi Chapel and Museum in Singapore”. Australian Geographer
36 (1): 11–7.
Tajudeen, Imran (2007). “State constructs of ethnicity in the reinvention of Malay-
Indonesian heritage in Singapore”. TDSR XVIII: 7–28.
Teo, P., Yeoh, B.S.A., Ooi, G.L., and Lai, K.P.Y. (2004). Changing landscapes of
Singapore. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
The Committee on Heritage Report, Singapore (1988). The Committee of Heritage
Report.
The Straits Times (1995). “Lessons of World War II must never be forgotten”,
16 September.
——— (1996) “Young don’t know enough about the past”, 9 September.
——— (2010) “New start for Malay Heritage Centre”, 28 July.
——— (2011). “New stylish vibe in Bali Lane”, 7 August.
Timothy, D.J. and Boyd, S.W. (2006). “Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued
traditions and new perspectives”. Journal of Heritage Tourism 1 (1): 1–16.
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) (1985). Conservation within the Central Area
with the Plan for Chinatown.
——— (2005). “URA reviews guidelines for core areas in historic districts in
consultation with stakeholders”, Press Release, 26 September.
——— (2011). Conservation guidelines.
Yeoh, B.S.A. and Kong, L. (1994). “Reading landscape meanings: state constructions
and lived experiences in Singapore’s Chinatown”. Habitat International 18 (4):
17–35.
Yuen, B. (2006). “Reclaiming cultural heritage in Singapore”. Urban Affairs Review
41: 830–54.

02 C-Landscapes.indd 42 7/30/13 10:17:56 AM