Tourism is an important industry in Singapore, in terms of employment, business activity and an income generator. The Singapore Tourism Board is continuously looking at potential avenues to make Singapore a competitive destination. Tourism development followed on the heels of urban redevelopment that was undertaken in the city, where old buildings had to make way for the new.
In this entry, I would like to examine how monuments are used in the production of a cultural identity in an urban landscape like Singapore. These monuments and landmarks are often found in an urban environment and in a prominent location, and are often very visible by the public.
These landmarks are viewed as ‘signatures of power’ (Lasswell, 1979), with the intention of amazing the viewer and evoking emotions about the state. In developing the nation state, there is a need to develop and assert the national identity and emphasise the belief in the existence and legitimacy of the nation.
Also, the creation of national symbols and traditions create a sense of the nation, and the ruling party uses the Merlion, for example, to create a sense of the nation. Tourism is also reduced to a few recognizable characteristics. In Singapore’s case, it is the Merlion, orchids, and Sentosa. In this entry, I will focus on the Merlion being used to produce a unified identity in Singapore.
The Merlion reflects the government’s intention to offer a symbol which transcends all time, space and ethnic divides. It is however, questionable as to whether the Merlion has been successful in conveying this sense of history and identity. The history behind this monument can be easily forgotten but the emblem of it is not.
According to the Ministry of Trade and Industry, tourists want to see an important landmark that they can identify with. It is often compared to the national symbols of other countries, like Paris which has its Eiffel Tower, and Rome which has the Colliseum. The MTI was quoted as saying that an identification landmark is a cost effective way of projecting the image of Singapore as it can be easily put on advertising flyers. (MTI, 1984: 26)
However, I think that the Merlion seems more like an effective marketing tool for tourists, and has little ties with Singaporeans. Even the MTI has admitted that it is a cost effective way of promoting Singapore. Other national symbols have been commercialized too, and here we see many postcards and souvenirs of the Merlion, the national orchid and even Raffles Hotel. The STB sees this as a way to draw attention to the country.
These fits in with Boorstin’s (1992:103) description of tourist attractions as places with little significance for the inward lives of people, but are sold as commodities to tourists.
Also, I feel that the Merlion was created by planners for the purpose of tourism, and was not evolved organically. It is somewhat funny that a country with such strong economic success has ties with a strange beast. But perhaps, over time, the Merlion will be capable of evoking a strong local affinity.
Boorstin (1992) has argued that over time, even ‘pseudo events’ like staged dances and cultural practices become authentic and permanent. I remember a National Day celebration where the theme of the parade revolved round some mythical creatures in search for a land. The perpetual stressing on the Merlion’s role in Singapore’s history may authenticate this image in people’s minds.
As the Merlion is located in the heart of the city and also in Sentosa, the production of myth around it takes place in two sites in the city. It has often been associated with family outings to the Esplanade areas, and also provides a romantic backdrop for couples in their wedding pictures. It has, over time, garnered local support and affinity. It is not surprising, therefore, if the Merlion will become synonymous with Singapore’s identity as an island state, in the future.
Bibliography
Lasswell, D. The Signatures of Power. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transactions Books, 1979
Boorstin, D. The Image. A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Vintage, 1992
