INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH

Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.389

Heritage Attractions and Tourism

Development in Asia: A Comparative
Study of Hong Kong and Singapore
Joan C. Henderson*
Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

The paper compares the principal Asian city

destinations of Hong Kong and Singapore
with specic reference to heritage attractions
and their contribution to tourism
development, revealing contrasts and
similarities that offer an insight into more
general practices and processes. Authorities
are actively pursuing tourism marketing and
development initiatives incorporating the
promotion of selected forms of heritage in
order to stimulate visitor arrivals, but also
employing heritage to dene and articulate
national and cultural identity. Heritage is
thus shown to have a political and sociocultural signicance in addition to its
economic value as a generator of revenue,
foreign exchange and employment. These
functions help to explain the higher priority
allocated to it in strategic planning and its
increasing use to attract visitors throughout
much of Asia. Contexts may be very different,
yet approaches correspond, as demonstrated
by the circumstances of Hong Kong and
Singapore. Copyright # 2002 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

ong Kong and Singapore are leading

international tourist destinations and
traditional rivals, in competition for
the position of the premier Asian tourism city.
A comparison of their tourism resources and
development strategies allows the identication of areas of convergence and divergence,
suggesting more widely applicable underlying
trends. The paper focuses on heritage and its
dual purpose as a visitor attraction and tool in
the social and political processes of expressing
aspects of a people's identity, functions that
are becoming characteristic of tourism across
the Asian region. Hong Kong and Singapore
share an emphasis on heritage that features
prominently in marketing and strategic plans
for the future, alongside nature and modern
purpose-built attractions.
The place of heritage in current tourism
strategies is analysed after a brief introduction
to the concepts of national and cultural
identity and their linkages with heritage and
tourism. Identity issues in Hong Kong and
Singapore are explored within a framework of
the conservation of heritage and its presentation as a visitor attraction, reference also being
made to the tensions between Eastern and
Western inuences. Although background
factors of geography, history, politics and
culture combine to create distinct policy making settings, agendas and outputs, there are
similarities in approach that indicate common
challenges and responses.
Such a discussion is timely given the return
of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty at the
end of the last decade, forcing a re-evaluation
of identity that has had an impact on heritage

Received 3 April 2001; revised 3 July 2001; accepted 3

September 2001

Keywords: attractions; heritage; identity;

Hong Kong; Singapore.
*Correspondence to: J. C. Henderson, Nanyang Business
School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang
Avenue, Singapore 639798.
E-mail: ahenderson@ntu.edu.sg

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

338
meanings and interpretations. Singapore too,
as a relatively young nation with a multiracial
population, faces the demands of constructing
an identity reected in choices about what
heritage to conserve and how to present it.
Heritage attractions emerge as a vehicle for the
discovery and articulation of identity, with the
state often selecting particular versions to
communicate and acting as a mediator. The
cases and their comparison thus afford insights into the complexities of the relationship
between tourism, heritage and identity in
Asian societies and are based on published
data, ofcial documents and promotional
material and site visits.
NATIONAL AND CULTURAL IDENTITY
AND HERITAGE ATTRACTIONS
National identity is an abstraction incorporating elements of the past, present and future,
which helps to dene and reinforce a feeling of
community and belonging amongst individuals and groups (Anderson, 1991; Smith, 1991).
Culture is a key component of national
identity, although there may be a set of distinct
cultural identities present in nations of mixed
ethnicity (Perera, 1995; Picard and Wood,
1997) such as Singapore. The situation in Hong
Kong is complicated because its residents have
become nationals of the Chinese state although
still retaining a separateness derived from
their colonial history. These layers of identity
nd expression in tangible and intangible
forms of heritage, which are often sold as
tourism products, and heritage tourism has
become a powerful commercial force. It has
also drawn increased attention from academics and is a recognisable subeld in the
tourism literature (Ashworth, 2000).
Decisions about the conservation and interpretation of heritage and its presentation as an
attraction serving both locals and tourists are
difcult, selective and intensely political, with
opportunities for misrepresentation, manipulation and even manufacture. Graham et al.
(2000) describe heritage as cultural and economic capital, vulnerable to exploitation of
various types. Governments responsible may
be following hegemonic aims (Tunbridge,
1984; Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996; Leong,
1997) and both they and the tourism industry
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. C. Henderson
are seeking nancial returns (Hewison, 1987).
Within Asia, heritage tourism is used for
ideological reasons and supports broader
ofcial policies of social integration or exclusion and nation building, especially in former
colonies that have secured their freedom
(Gradburn, 1997; Shaw and Jones, 1997).
Singapore clearly ts this category (Teo and
Chang, 1998), but Hong Kong's status is more
ambiguous as it has moved from a British
colony to a Special Administrative Region
(SAR) of the People's Republic of China, which
exercises ultimate authority, despite allowing
a degree of autonomy. This transition has
generated some insecurity and interest in the
concept of a Hong Kong identity, which
parallels concerns over identity issues in
newly independent states.
In such circumstances, heritage attractions
can assist in resolving questions of identity
and play a crucial part in telling the story of a
nation or people to a number of audiences.
However, the story may be distorted by overt
and covert political motives (Cartier, 1996;
Peleggi, 1996; Philp and Mercer, 1999) and this
aspect of tourism has been criticised by many
of the authors cited above. There are additional
accusations about neo-colonisation when organisations in generating markets exercise
control over societies at destinations, usually
in less developed countries, by reinforcing
stereotypical identities and reconstructing
heritages (Palmer, 1994). On a more positive
note, the benets of tourism in providing
support for heritage conservation efforts
(UNESCO, 1999) and stimulating civic pride
in heritage (Palmer, 1999) have also been
acknowledged. In view of these considerations, it is not surprising that heritage has come
to occupy a prominence in tourism development and marketing strategies with a signicance extending into the wider social and
political environments.
STRATEGIC PLANNING, HERITAGE AND
IDENTITY IN HONG KONG AND
SINGAPORE
Hong Kong and Singapore are successful
international tourist destinations (Travel and
Tourism Intelligence, 1999a,b), receiving 11.3
and 6.3 million arrivals respectively in 1999
Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)

Heritage and Tourism in Asia

(WTO, 2000). Despite their overall strong
performances, they have had to contend with
a market of intensifying competitiveness and
the damaging effect of the Asian nancial crisis
of the late 1990s (Prideaux, 1999). Hong Kong
had the additional problems of uncertainty
related to the end of British colonial rule in
1997 and the need to reposition itself as a part
of China (Hobson and Go, 1994; Hobson, 1997;
Mok and Dewald, 1999), whereas Singapore
appears to be reaching maturity in its tourism
life cycle (Khan, 1998). Both have responded
with strategic plans (STPB, 1996; HKTC, 2000)
directed towards the same goal of becoming
the principal Asian urban tourism destination.
This requires consolidating current strengths,
devising new products and expanding market
appeal, which means adding new attractions
and upgrading those in existence.
Heritage has an important contribution to
make to the realisation of objectives and has
been allocated a high priority by the Hong
Kong Tourism Commission (HKTC), the
growing popularity of holidays based on
heritage and culture stressed in its strategy
document. Buildings and historic and archaeological sites with tourism potential are being
identied, and the maintenance of colourful
traditions encouraged by a newly formed
Heritage Tourism Force. The appeal of heritage and traditional culture also have been
recognised in Singapore and their loss owing
to rapid urbanisation and modernisation was
mooted as a cause of the slowdown in visitor
arrivals in the 1980s (MTI and STPB, 1986);
Exotic East and Colonial Heritage were
amongst the marketing/development themes
proposed to reverse this decline. The idea of
thematisation is retained in the latest plan,
which outlines specic clusters of heritage and
cultural attractions as suitable development
zones. The conclusion that heritage tourism in
Hong Kong is `being institutionalised with
product enhancement and facilitation' (Travel
and Tourism Intelligence, 1999a, p. 33) thus
applies equally to Singapore.
Promotional material already catalogues a
range of Imperial Chinese sites and structures
in Hong Kong and ethnic architecture in
Singapore, as well as their built British colonial
heritage (HKTA, 2000a; STB, 2000a; National
Heritage Board and Presentation of MonuCopyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

339
ments Board, undated). Both advertise a human legacy of traditions, customs and festivals
and have museums and galleries devoted to
various ingredients of history and culture.
Vigorous promotion suggests that the industry
appreciates the value of heritage as a marketable commodity and this provides a rationale
for conservation, which the tourism authorities
are advocating enthusiastically (Rowse, 1999).
Excessive commercialisation remains a risk,
however, with some doubts about levels of
ofcial commitment to conservation given
rising populations, land shortages and acute
development pressures.
In addition to economic gains, social and
political imperatives may inuence the uses
made of heritage. The work of the Antiquities
and Monuments Ofce in Hong Kong indicates the stance of the colonial government in
the years immediately preceding the handover. Nearly all formally listed monuments
were approved by the Ofce in the 1980s and
mid-1990s and a Heritage Trust was established in 1992 to protect the social heritage of
Hong Kong and aid community organised
conservation schemes. The British regime also
built the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, a
striking waterfront building and modern arts
venue, in 1989. Such activity has been accounted for as a defence against assimilation
(Abbas, 1997), a strong Hong Kong heritage
and related identity bolstering its chances of
survival as a separate entity in the post-1997
era of `one country two systems' (Den Xiaoping, 1993).
The current government's position on heritage can be discerned in more recent initiatives
and 19971998 was designated Heritage Year
as part of a campaign to raise awareness,
centred on Hong Kong's Chinese history
linked to contemporary life and future prospects. The Hong Kong Museum of History
reopened at an enlarged site in 2000 when a
Hong Kong Heritage Museum was also
founded; this depicts life in the New Territories, facets of Chinese culture such as
Cantonese opera and modern Hong Kong art.
A newly reconstructed Tang dynasty Buddhist
monastery focuses on the Chinese lineage of
Hong Kong population (HKTA, 2000b). These
attractions may be seen as an embodiment of
the shared origins and destiny of China and
Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)

340
Hong Kong, cementing ties and signifying the
People's Republic as the motherland, leaving
British rule a short interlude in a lengthy
Chinese history. Nurturing solidarity between
the people of Hong Kong and Mainland China
could be a way of averting opposition to a
government closely associated with Beijing
and assuaging anxieties, defusing the debate
about democratic freedoms (EIU, 1999). Thus
heritage sites are a channel for delivering
political and socio-cultural messages about
formal conceptions of identity and heritage in
Hong Kong to residents and external publics
as well as tourists. Nevertheless, there is some
potential for tension between the tourism
industry and government as the colonial
imprint is what distinguishes Hong Kong from
other Chinese cities and therefore a resource to
be highlighted.
The public also may not be receptive to
certain messages and popular opinion on
matters of identity and heritage is a subject
for more detailed study. There is evidence,
however, that the handover period stimulated
interest amongst some groups of citizens in the
meaning of being Hong Kong Chinese, which
is seen as fundamentally different from being
Mainland Chinese (Lo, 1996; Abbas, 1997;
Matthews, 1997). The search had commenced
earlier, possibly prompted by a shift in certain
sections of society away from materialism to
more spiritual values (Inglehart, 1990). One
consequence of these preoccupations has been
a greater enthusiasm for heritage and its
protection, with attractions perceived as a
source of enlightenment about cultural roots.
Cheung (1999, p. 572) analyses a well known
Hong Kong heritage trail and concludes that it
serves `domestic tourists seeking an aspect of
themselves', as well as international visitors in
quest of the exotic Orient and a government
looking to create new heritage sites.
Unlike the people of Hong Kong, who
acquired a Chinese nationality overnight at
the end of British rule, those of Singapore
started on the more conventional journey of
former colonies towards nationhood in 1965
after its exit from the Federation of Malaysia.
Forging a unifying identity and sense of
mission is a critical aim of the People's Action
Party (PAP), which has been in power since the
1960s. Its task has been made more difcult by
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. C. Henderson
the presence of minorities ofcially classied
as Malays, Indians and Others, besides the
ethnic Chinese who make up over 75% of the
population (SDS, 2000). Originally the government concentrated on economic advancement
and the satisfaction of material aspirations, but
there was a later acknowledgement that
Singaporeans must have `an instinctive sense
of shared values, shared history and shared
destiny' if the country is to survive and
prosper (Singapore 21 Committee, 1999, p.
42). At the same time, multiculturalism has
been sanctioned so that races retain their own
cultures while still living together as Singaporeans. Efforts have, however, been made to
ensure that race is `politically non-threatening,
being subsumed under national identity and
dened largely in cultural terms and politically controlled' (Lai, 1995, p. 195).
These policies are mirrored in shifting
attitudes towards built and cultural heritage
as Singapore has moved from a colony to a
modern republic. Initially the past was
neglected as rapid urbanisation and industrialisation transformed the island (Dale, 1999),
old buildings seen as an unproductive use of
land and a barrier to progress. The historic
urban landscape and heritage, in general, were
then reassessed in light of the argument that a
society is determined not by its economics
alone, and government started to implement
conservation measures (Smith, 1999). By the
early 1990s, the state planning agency (URA,
1991, p. 24) was maintaining that `a sense of
history' gave the nation `a memory' that
provided `cohesion, continuity and identity'.
This argument has been repeated frequently
and the conservation programme is now well
established, although some heritage projects
have been criticised for their absence of
authenticity (Powell, 1994; Teo and Huang,
1995; Henderson, 2000).
Cultural difference is reected in the balance
amongst protected national monuments of
Chinese temples, Muslim and Indian mosques
and Christian churches (Tay, 1991). The ethnic
enclaves of Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam (the seat of Malay royalty) have
been conserved with a degree of adaptive
reuse. Multiculturalism is also evidenced in
the country's food, traditions, festivals and
events. Society is described in the ofcial guide
Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)

Heritage and Tourism in Asia

as a `melting pot' of `distinctive avours',
photographs showing the various races making music and dancing together (STB, 2000a).
Tourism acts as a demonstration of `ethnic
harmony and celebration of diversity' (Chang
et al., 1996, p. 300), although its images may
obscure awkward questions of racial misunderstandings, which some commentators have
observed (Lai, 1995).
Heritage and its conservation have thus
assumed a heightened relevance in Singapore
and sites constitute a narrative of nationalism,
unity and multiracialism. Survival and
achievement against the odds is another
binding tie, exemplied in the treatment of
colonial buildings, which are now symbols of
patriotism rather than imperial domination
(Perry et al., 1997). The government portrays
itself as the defender of these core values,
essential to the well being of the people and the
country's future, which are embedded in
heritage attractions. A hegemonic agenda
may be in operation and Hall and Oehlers
(2000, p. 86) claim that the PAP's actions are an
example of `tourism as politics', the intention
being to display the party's `centrality to the
successful development of Singapore and thus
secure its pre-eminent position in Singaporean
politics'.
Heritage in Hong Kong and Singapore
therefore has profound political and social
implications arising from pressing questions of
national and cultural identity and government
authority. Many other Asian countries are
confronting the dilemmas of creating and
consolidating identity inherent in nation building, with regimes looking to assert their
legitimacy. This necessitates making decisions
about what constitutes heritage and its uses,
visitor attractions having a role in conrming
identity and communicating particular visions
of a people's past, present and future aspirations. Consensus may not exist and conicts
occur, although there is sometimes little scope
for residents to contest ofcial views.
MORE MODERN ATTRACTIONS
In addition, notions of heritage and identity
are affected by globalisation and related social
movements that encourage cultural homogeneity (Smith, 1990; Robison and Goodman,
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

341
1996). Hong Kong and Singapore exhibit signs
of such internationalisation, but they have had
a history of exposure to outside inuences and
a uid culture has emerged that is neither
wholly Asian nor Western (Ang and Stratton,
1995; Lau, 1997). There is perhaps a constant
interaction amongst international, national,
ethnic and local dimensions of identity, which
further complicates the quest for understanding.
Such ambivalence is apparent in their tourism resource bases, combining heritage and
modern attractions, and in promotional
images of sophisticated cities with a fascinating mix of East and West. Facilities of ultramodern hotels, shopping centres, conference
venues and transport are highlighted in
juxtaposition to heritage attractions. Opportunities for shopping, ne dining and enjoying
the arts and world class events are also on
offer. Family fun at Ocean Park maritime
theme park and Madame Tussaud's Waxworks can be found in Hong Kong and
Singapore markets the island of Sentosa as a
holiday playground, comprising an assortment of purpose-built attractions.
The campaigns of the Hong Kong Tourism
Board, formerly known as the Tourism Association, are intended to convey vibrancy and
diversity and a combination of the old and new
that characterise the Hong Kong brand
(HKTA, 2000c). The Singapore Tourism Board
depicts a modern, progressive and cosmopolitan city state that has not forgotten its Asian
heritage (STB, 2000b), qualities epitomised by
the New AsiaSingapore brand's personality
traits of cosmopolitanism, youthfulness, vibrancy, Asian modernity, reliability and comfort (STB, 1998). There are clear parallels
between the advertising of Hong Kong and
Singapore, indicative of the prevalence of place
branding in destination marketing and a
tendency towards commodication (Morgan
and Pritchard, 1998; Tyler et al., 1998).
Looking to the future, modern attractions
are critical to strategic planning in Hong
Kong and Singapore, surpassing heritage if
measured by actual and planned investment.
Hong Kong favours large-scale facility and
attraction projects, the HKTC recommending a
new cruise terminal, another conference and
exhibition centre, an international performing
Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)

342
arts centre and a multi-purpose stadium. Innovations agreed on or in progress are Hong
Kong Disneyland, a wetland park and extension to the Ocean Park theme park. Under
review are two cable car systems connecting
attractions, a San Francisco-style Fisherman's
Wharf and an entertainment corridor on
Lantau Island where the new airport is sited.
The government's nancial support for
Disneyland provides an interesting illustration
of Chinese political and cultural sensitivities
about Westernisation giving way to commercial realities, which Soeld and Li (1998) have
observed more generally. The park will be
built and operated by Hong Kong International Theme Parks Ltd, a joint venture
between the government and The Walt Disney
Company, with the former owning 57% of
the shares and injecting HK$3.25 billion. There
will be an ofcial loan of HK$5.6 billion
towards the estimated building costs of
HK$14.1 billion, and HK$13.6 billion of publicly funded infrastructure works have been
announced (Press Announcements, 2000).
Singapore, which had some ambitions to be
home to a Disney park, has already invested
heavily in expensive tourism infrastructure
and superstructure and is at a more advanced
stage in the implementation of its strategy. For
example, there is a new S$200 million conference venue and The EsplanadeTheatres on
the Bay performing arts complex will be
completed by 2002 at a cost of approximately
S$600 million. The country is enthusiastic
about hosting major events in line with a
complementary strategy to turn it into a global
arts centre (STPB and MITA, 1995) and is also
trying to draw world-class sporting competitions, again in competition with Hong Kong,
which positions itself as the events capital of
Asia.
Given the promise of an exciting fusion of
West and East and traditional and contemporary, there is perhaps a danger of an overemphasis on international style attractions and
a loss of perceived and actual distinctiveness.
Development may follow a common path to
create a uniform tourism landscape of contrived attractions promoted in a way that
reinforces similarities. There are problems to
address of maintaining a balance between the
old and the new and ensuring that aspects of
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. C. Henderson
heritage, such as the built environment and
cultural traditions, are not overwhelmed by
excessive development and the race to modernise and globalise. Heritage thus assumes an
additional dimension whereby its conservation can help to maintain a unique sense of
place and difference, of intrinsic merit and
commercial appeal as a means to secure an
advantage over rivals. The argument extends
to natural heritage and green tourism is a
second strand in the tourism plans of both
locations. Although a topic for another paper,
it can be noted that 40% of Hong Kong's total
land area of 1097 km2 (almost double that of
Singapore) is occupied by nature parks and
Singapore is proud of its clean and green
garden city, possessing several nature sites
and offshore islands suitable for outdoor
recreation.
CONCLUSION
Analysis and comparison of Hong Kong and
Singapore reveal several contrasts in geographical, historical, economic, political and socio-cultural contexts. These have created
particular sets of constraints and opportunities, shaping the tourism policy making
environment and outcomes. The strategies that
have evolved diverge in certain aspects, but
also converge in critical ways as both locations
strive for recognition and growth in an
increasingly competitive tourism industry that
is exposed to internal and external change.
They have responded to the general challenges
and those emerging from their individual
circumstances with comparable programmes
of product enhancement, innovation and marketing in pursuit of almost identical objectives
of pre-eminence as an Asian city destination
with common types of attraction. Programmes
are being executed by energetic tourism
agencies, actively supported by governments,
and it would be surprising if they did not meet
with some success. Central to such initiatives is
heritage tourism, recognised as a unique selling point of considerable commercial value.
Promotion of heritage is not just dictated by
economics, however, and the discussion of
Hong Kong and Singapore suggests that
heritage attractions can assist in the exploration, discovery and assertion of national and
Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)

Heritage and Tourism in Asia

cultural identities. Identity and the heritage
from which it is derived are subject to
interpretation and the state may act as a key
decision maker, often guided by an essentially
hegemonic agenda. Heritage and identity are
inextricably linked, forming a close triangular
relationship with tourism, and heritage tourism inevitably becomes an issue of politics. The
signicance of heritage attractions thus can be
appreciated fully only when examined within
a broader framework that incorporates the
political, as well as economic and social
dynamics, of destinations.
REFERENCES
Abbas A. 1997. Hong Kong Culture and the Politics of
Disappearance. University of Minnesota Press:
Minneapolis.
Anderson AD. 1991. National Identity. Penguin:
London.
Ang I, Stratton J. 1995. Straddling East and West:
Singapore's paradoxical search for a national
identity. In Asian and Pacic Inscriptions: Identities,
Ethnicities, Nationalities, Perera S (ed.). Meridien:
Victoria; 179192.
Ashworth GJ. 2000. Heritage, tourism and places: a
review. Tourism Recreation Research 25(1): 1929.
Cartier C. 1996. Conserving the built heritage and
generating heritage tourism in Peninsular Malaysia. Tourism Recreation Research 21(1): 4553.
Chang TC, Milne J, Fallon D, Pohlmann C. 1996.
Urban heritage tourism: the globallocal nexus.
Annals of Tourism Research 23(2): 284305.
Cheung SCH. 1999. The meanings of a heritage trail
in Hong Kong. Annals of Tourism Research 26(3):
570588.
Dale O. 1999. Urban Planning in Singapore: the
Transformation of a City. Oxford University Press:
Kuala Lumpur.
Den Xiaoping. 1993. On the Question of Hong Kong.
New Horizon Press: Hong Kong.
EIU. 1999. Country Prole 19992000: Hong Kong.
Economist Intelligence Unit: London.
Gradburn NHH. 1997. Tourism and cultural development in East Asia and Oceania. In Tourism and
Cultural Development in Asia and Oceania, Yamashita Y, Din KH, Eades JS (eds). University
Kebangsaan Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur; 194214.
Graham B, Ashworth GJ, Tunbridge JE. 2000. A
Geography of Heritage. Arnold: London.
Hall CM, Oehlers AL. 2000. Tourism and politics in
South and Southeast Asia: political instability and
policy. In Tourism in South and Southeast Asia, Hall
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

343
CM, Page S. (eds). Butterworth-Heinemann:
Oxford; 7793.
Henderson JC. 2000. Attracting tourists to Singapore's Chinatown: a case study in conservation
and promotion. Tourism Management 21: 525534.
Hewison R. 1987. The Heritage Business: Britain in a
Climate of Decline. Methuen: London.
HKTA. 2000a. Museums and Heritage. Hong Kong
Tourist Association: Hong Kong.
HKTA. 2000b. New attractions add life! Focus Hong
Kong Spring: 3.
HKTA. 2000c. Focus Hong Kong JulySeptember: 1
15.
HKTC. 2000. Hong Kong Tourist Development Action
Programme. Economic Services Bureau: Hong
Kong.
Hobson JSP. 1997. Hong Kong: the transition to
1997. Tourism Management 16(1): 1520.
Hobson JSP, Ko G. 1994. Tourism and politics: the
implications of the change in sovereignty on the
future development of Hong Kong's tourism
industry. Journal of Travel Research Spring: 28.
Inglehart R. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial
Society. Princeton University Press: New Jersey.
Khan H. 1998. The tourism explosion: policy
decisions facing Singapore. In Managing Tourism
in Cities: Policy, Process and Practice, Tyler D,
Guerrier Y, Robertson M (eds). Wiley: Chichester;
6588.
Lai AE. 1995. Meanings of Multiethnicity: a Case Study
of Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Singapore.
Oxford University Press: Oxford and Singapore.
Lau CK. 1997. Hong Kong's Colonial Legacy: a Hong
Kong Chinese View of the British Heritage. The
Chinese University Press: Hong Kong.
Leong WT. 1997. Culture and the state: manufacturing traditions for tourism. In Understanding
Singapore Society, Ong JT, Tong CK, Tan ES (eds).
Times Academic Press: Singapore; 513534.
Lo SH. 1996. Hong Kong: post-colonialism and
political conict. In The New Rich in Asia: Mobile
Phones, McDonalds and Middle Class Revolution,
Robison R, Goodman DSG (eds). Routledge:
London; 163181.
Matthews G. 1997. Heunggongyahn: on the past,
present and future of Hong Kong identity.
Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 29(3): 313.
MTI and STPB. 1986. Tourist Product Development
Plan. Ministry of Trade and Industry and
Singapore Tourist Promotion Board: Singapore.
Mok C, Dewald B. 1999. Tourism in Hong Kong:
after the handover. Asia Pacic Journal of Travel
Research 3(12): 3240.
Morgan N, Pritchard A. 1998. Tourism Promotion and
Power: Creating Images, Creating Identities. Wiley:
Chichester.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)

344
National Heritage Board and Preservation of
Monuments Board. Undated. Singapore's Monuments and Historic Sites. Singapore: National
Heritage Board and Preservation of Monuments
Board.
Palmer C. 1994. Tourism and colonialism: the
experience of the Bahamas. Annals of Tourism
Research 21(4): 792811.
Palmer C. 1999. Tourism and the symbols of
identity. Tourism Management 20: 313321.
Peleggi M. 1996. National heritage and global
tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research
23(2): 432447.
Perera S (ed.). 1995. Asian and Pacic Inscriptions:
Identities, Ethnicities, Nationalities. Meridien: Victoria.
Perry M, Kong L, Yeoh B. 1997. Singapore: A
Developmental City State. Wiley: Chichester.
Philp J, Mercer D. 1999. Commodication of
Buddhism in contemporary Burma. Annals of
Tourism Research 29(1): 2159.
Picard M, Wood R. 1997. Tourism, Ethnicity and the
State in Asian and Pacic Societies. University of
Hawaii: Hawaii.
Powell R. 1994. Living Legacy: Singapore's Architectural Heritage Renewed. Singapore Heritage Society: Singapore.
Press Announcements 2000. Hong Kong Disneyland,
http://www.info.gov.hk/disneyland/
econ_e.htm (accessed 7 November 2000).
Prideaux B. 1999. Tourism perspectives of the Asian
nancial crisis: lessons for the future. Current
Issues in Tourism 2(4): 279293.
Robison R, Goodman DSG (eds). 1996. The New Rich
in Asia: Mobile Phones, McDonalds and Middle Class
Revolution. Routledge: London.
Rowse M. 1999. The Tourism Commission and its
role in heritage tourism. Paper presented at
International Conference: Heritage and Tourism
The Economic Values of Heritage Tourism in Hong
Kong, Hong Kong, 15 December.
SDS. 2000. Singapore in Figures. Department of
Statistics: Singapore.
Shaw BJ, Jones R. 1997. Contested Heritage: Voices
from the Periphery. Ashgate: Aldershot.
Singapore 21 Committee. 1999. Singapore 21:
Together, We Make the Difference. Singapore 21
Committee: Singapore.
Smith AD. 1990. Towards a global culture? Theory,
Culture and Society 7: 171191.
Smith AD. 1991. National Identity. Penguin: London.
Smith RA. 1999. Urban Redevelopment Authority:
tourism and heritage conservation in Singapore.

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. C. Henderson
In Cases in Singapore Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Hooi DH (ed.). Prentice Hall: Singapore; 3957.
Soeld T, Li F. 1999. China: tourism development
and cultural policies. Annals of Tourism Research
25(2): 362392.
STB. 1998. Riding the Asian Tidal Wave. Conference Papers, Singapore Tourism Conference '98.
Singapore Tourism Board: Singapore.
STB. 2000a. Ofcial Guide Singapore New Asia.
Singapore: Singapore Tourism Board.
STB. 2000b. Live it up in New AsiaSingapore.
Media Release No. MCD/2000, 12 April, Singapore Tourism Board: Singapore.
STPB. 1996. Tourism 21: Vision of a Tourism Capital.
Singapore Tourist Promotion Board: Singapore.
STPB and MITA. 1995. Singapore Global City for
the Arts. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and
Ministry of Information and the Arts: Singapore.
Tay KS. 1991. Heritage conservation: political and
social implications: the case of Singapore. Singapore Institute of Architects Journal March/April: 37
41.
Teo P, Chang TC. 1998. Critical issues in a critical
era: tourism in Southeast Asia. Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography 19(2): 119129.
Teo P, Huang S. 1995. Tourism and heritage
conservation in Singapore. Annals of Tourism
Research 22: 589615.
Travel and Tourism Intelligence. 1999a. Hong Kong.
City Reports Number 3, Travel and Tourism
Intelligence: London.
Travel and Tourism Intelligence. 1999b. Singapore.
City Reports Number 1, Travel and Tourism
Intelligence: London.
Tunbridge JE. 1984. Whose heritage to conserve?
Cross-cultural reections on political dominance
and urban heritage conservation. The Canadian
Geographer 28(2): 171180.
Tunbridge JE, Ashworth GJ. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: the Management of the Past as a Resource in
Conict. Wiley: Chichester.
Tyler D, Guerrier Y, Robertson M (eds). 1998.
Managing Tourism in Cities. Wiley: Chichester.
UNESCO. 1999. The economics of heritage. Conference/Workshop on the Adaptive Reuse of Historic
Properties in Asia and the Pacic, 917 May,
Conference Programme: Penang and Melaka.
URA. 1991. A Future with a Past: Saving our Heritage.
Urban Redevelopment Authority: Singapore.
WTO. 2000. Tourism Highlights 2000, 2nd edn. World
Tourism Organisation: Madrid.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 4, 337344 (2002)