survey on the perceptions of singapore’s · seah chia shih paveena and wong kwang lin survey on...

SURVEY ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF SINGAPORE’S

BUILT HERITAGE AND LANDMARKS

NATALIE PANG

SEAH CHIA SHIH PAVEENA

and

WONG KWANG LIN

August 2019

IPS Working Papers No. 36

About Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) was established in 1988 to promote a greater awareness of policy issues and good governance. Today, IPS is a think-tank within the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) at the National University of Singapore. It seeks to cultivate clarity of thought, forward thinking and a big-picture perspective on issues of critical national interest through strategic deliberation and research. It adopts a multi-disciplinary approach in its analysis and takes the long-term view. It studies the attitudes and aspirations of Singaporeans which have an impact on policy development and the relevant areas of diplomacy and international affairs. The Institute bridges and engages the diverse stakeholders through its conferences and seminars, closed-door discussions, publications, and surveys on public perceptions of policy.

IPS Working Papers No. 36 (August 2019): Survey on the Perceptions of Singapore’s Built Heritage and Landmarks by Natalie Pang,

Seah Chia Shih Paveena and Wong Kwang Lin

IPS Working Papers No. 36

SURVEY ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF SINGAPORE’S BUILT HERITAGE

AND LANDMARKS

NATALIE PANG

Senior Research Fellow

IPS Social Lab

Institute of Policy Studies

[email protected]

SEAH CHIA SHIH PAVEENA

Senior Research Analyst

IPS Social Lab


and

WONG KWANG LIN

Research Analyst

IPS Social Lab


[email protected]

August 2019

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2



CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 Background 5

1.2 Literature review 6

2. METHODOLOGY 9

2.1 Focus group discussions 9

2.2 Survey sampling and data collection 10

2.3 Questionnaire design 10

2.4 Quantitative data analysis 12

3. RATINGS ON FOUR MEASURES AND FACTOR ANALYSIS 14

3.1 Interpreting the data 14

3.2 Findings and discussion 16

4. SENSE OF NATIONAL IDENTITY 22

4.1 Senior group 24

4.2 Middle-aged group 27

4.3 Youngest group 29

4.4 Value of heritage 30

5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 31

References 37

Appendix 1 Composite measures and reliability 41

Appendix 2 Ranked list of sites by awareness, knowledge, memories, physical appeal and perceived importance 42

Appendix 3A Factor analysis of knowledge 57

Appendix 3B Factor analysis of memories 60

Appendix 3C Factor analysis of physical appeal 63

3



Appendix 3D Factor analysis of perceived importance 66

Appendix 4 Regression models for national identity 69

4



SURVEY ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF SINGAPORE’S BUILT

HERITAGE AND LANDMARKS

Abstract

Discussions of heritage value often place emphasis on the visions of planners or

designers, and historical experts’ assessments. However, the way that local users and

the general public perceive and interact with heritage sites tends to be overlooked.

The Study on the Perceptions of Singapore’s Built Heritage and Landmarks seeks to

understand public opinion towards built heritage in Singapore, drawing on an opinion

poll of 53 heritage sites. Around 1,500 respondents evaluated the sites in terms of four

domains: knowledge, memories, physical appeal and perceived importance.

The analysis focuses on age differences between respondents, showing how

perceptions of heritage change over lifetimes and with different social contexts. Efforts

to promote heritage or understand public perceptions need to account for such

differences, as public opinion does not come from a singular point of view.

Perspectives are shaped through various channels including personal experience,

social media, mass education, and commercial marketing. This also points to the

deliberate or unconscious ways in which people can bring meaning to the places they

live in, and create heritage value in doing so.

The broad sample of sites allows for an understanding of underlying associations that

may shape perceptions of heritage sites in general, but may not be immediately

observable. In turn, examining these associations with respect to the outcome of

national identity refines understandings of the relationship between heritage and

national identity.

5



SURVEY ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF SINGAPORE’S BUILT

HERITAGE AND LANDMARKS

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Like many other Asian cities, one of the key priorities in Singapore’s national

development is sustainable urban development. As a small city-state, the challenges

of land scarcity, population growth, and increasing economic and socio-cultural

activities in Singapore’s downtown core have implications on urban planning. Despite

these challenges, there has been an increase in the number of buildings marked for

conservation, as well as an expansion in the types of conserved buildings. In 2014, for

example, the 75 sites gazetted for conservation included warehouses, public housing

flats, a former market, and healthcare facilities (Zaccheus, 2014). Meanwhile, as of

December 2018, there were 72 monuments preserved under the Preservation of

Monuments Act (Urban Redevelopment Authority, 2019).

Issues like collective sales, demolition and redevelopment of landmarks such as Pearl

Bank Apartments, Bukit Brown Cemetery and the Dakota Crescent housing estate

have gained prominence in recent years. The activism and public engagement around

these sites, through position papers, petitions and community activities, reflect a

growing interest in built heritage conservation (see, Tay, 2018; Huang, 2014).

In this context, while more buildings and landmarks are being conserved and

repurposed, questions surrounding the issues of built heritage conservation have

become more salient. This research examines how Singaporeans perceive the

6



meaning, purpose and value of built heritage, and how these perceptions influence

individual-level outcomes such as personal life satisfaction; collective-level outcomes

such as the sense of national identity; as well as policy outcomes such as support for

heritage conservation and interest in taking part in conservation programmes.

While all four outcomes were assessed in the survey, this paper will focus on the

outcome of national identity as it has been a persistently elusive issue in Singapore

(Ortmann, 2009), and is relevant to most Singaporeans as a disposition oriented to

the collective. Furthermore, built heritage is widely understood as significant to the

formation of national identity. Hence, it is of interest to further examine the relationship

between heritage activism and citizens’ perceptions of national identity in the local

context, where the two concepts are constantly being reproduced and redefined in

various ways.

1.2 Literature review

What is understood by built heritage? Scholars and policymakers have proposed

several definitions of heritage. Bond and Worthing (2015) define built heritage as

aspects of the physical environment that have been designed and constructed by

people. More importantly, buildings are deemed heritage assets when they acquire

social meanings that generally extend beyond their original purposes. While heritage

can be meaningful and important to individuals and communities, the meaning and

importance of sites varies from person to person (Modern Heritage Matters, 2013).

A considerable amount of literature has also been published on the value of heritage.

The Preservation of Sites and Monuments division, one of the key decision-making

authorities on heritage in Singapore, aims to identify national monuments based on

7



criteria including “historic, cultural, traditional, archaeological, architectural, artistic or

symbolic significance and national importance” (National Heritage Board, 2019). Local

scholars have also recognised that heritage sites play an important part in how people

view the country they live in, how they feel, and their quality of life. Built heritage is

important in inspiring a sense of national solidarity and pride among Singaporeans

(Kong & Yeoh, 2003). Moreover, the conservation of historic buildings is considered

an important symbol of nationhood and a tangible element of the Singaporean national

identity (Ooi, 1994). Conversely, the loss of significant historic sites brings about a

sense of displacement and helplessness (Liew & Pang, 2015).

Official discourses on what constitutes built heritage often underscore ideas of a

hierarchy based on how significant and authentic sites are considered to be. While the

impact of heritage on citizens is considered, dominant discourses about how built

heritage can and should be experienced largely take place among professionals,

including academics, policymakers, heritage-related practitioners and activists. The

emphasis is placed on expert knowledge and skills. In comparison, there is minimal

research that systematically examines the diversity of public perceptions of heritage

(McDonald, 2011b). Thus, in many countries, the incorporation of public opinion in

determining the significance of heritage sites and making decisions about

conservation is limited. In Singapore, too, more than a decade ago, Yuen (2005) urged

the consideration of viewpoints of stakeholders such as residents and user groups, to

encourage greater understanding among stakeholders when making conservation

plans. To date, however, there are hardly any studies in Singapore that examine public

attitudes towards heritage and conservation practices.

8



As Lefebvre argues, the production of spatiality involves three aspects — the

conceived, the perceived and the lived (1991). Conception is found in the authoritative

intentions of designers and planners, but perception and lived experience are what

need to be further investigated here. Differences exist in opinions about heritage and

conservation, which could even lead to tensions, complicated by the vested interests

of particular stakeholders. Thus, it is important to understand the complexity of various

perspectives, and not take for granted a singular dominant conception of meaning and

value to any given site.

Previous studies in Singapore tend to focus on particular historic districts (see Yeoh &

Huang, 1996; Kwok, Wee & Chia, 2000; Henderson, 2008), or buildings (see Goh,

2010; Henderson, 2001; Henderson, 2011a). Qualitative research methods such as

focus group discussions and public dialogues are often used to elicit opinions from the

general public about heritage and conservation issues (Yuen, 2005). Although there

are a few studies that use quantitative research methods such as surveys to gather

public opinions towards heritage and conservation matters, the sample sizes have

been relatively small (see Ooi, 1994; Kong & Yeoh, 1994).

While experts and specialists have often shared their opinions on the value and issues

associated with built heritage, more examination is needed of how the public interprets

and perceives various landmarks and sites. The purpose of this study is therefore to

offer insights on public understandings of old buildings and landmarks in Singapore,

based on a general population sample. Findings from this research can be used to

make a practical contribution by informing communication plans, heritage promotion

programmes and directions for further research. The findings could also have

9



theoretical implications by offering insights into how members of the public appraise

heritage sites in general.

2. METHODOLOGY

Prior to the survey that this report focuses on, an earlier phase of the study had taken

place involving focus group discussions, which served to inform our research design.

We will first briefly recapitulate the research approach used in the focus group

discussions and explain how the findings were used to inform the second phase of the

study. Next, we will elaborate on the methodology used in the survey of the second

phase.

2.1 Focus group discussions

2.1.1 Selecting of a sample of sites for focus group discussions

In order to select particular sites to include in the focus group discussions, an initial

list of built landmarks was compiled from official sources and news articles. The list

contained a mix of sites that are and are not conserved, and that are significant to

different social groups. It also included sites at risk of demolition or that were already

demolished. Based on the work of To, Chong & Chong (2014), only sites aged above

30 years were included. To further simplify the list, each site was evaluated for various

criteria, detailed in Figure 1 below, which summarises the process of selecting this

sample. Eventually, 90 sites were selected for the focus groups.

During the focus groups, participants explained which sites were important to them,

and why. Subsequently, two independent coders identified common themes emerging

from the discussion transcripts, based on the reasons participants cited for assigning

importance to the sites. Themes derived from the qualitative analysis were refined and

used to inform the design of the survey questionnaire, in Phase Two of the study.

10



Figure 1. Selection of a sample of sites

2.2 Survey sampling and data collection

Drawing upon the Department of Statistics’ sampling frame of all residential addresses

in Singapore, a door-to-door quota sampling method controlling for age, gender and

ethnicity was used to select respondents. Face-to-face computer assisted personal

interviews (CAPI) were conducted with 1515 Singaporeans aged 18–70, i.e., born

between 1948 and 2000. Data was collected between 2 July and 31 August 2018.

2.3 Questionnaire design

2.3.1 Selecting of a sample of sites for the survey

Based on the focus groups discussions’ findings, we derived the top 53 heritage sites

that respondents perceived as important to form a sample of sites to be assessed in

11



the questionnaire. This included 50 sites that existed as of April 2018, and three

demolished sites.

2.3.2 Instrument development

The questionnaire comprised five sections. The first section asked respondents if they

were aware of each of the 53 sites. For each site they were aware of, they would be

asked to rate their knowledge and memories of it, as well as its physical appeal and

importance to them.

The second section focused on the three demolished sites, asking respondents if they

would have chosen to keep part or all of the site, if it were still possible. If they would

have retained at least part of the site, they were asked to rate how far they agreed

with several statements citing possible reasons why the site should be kept.

The third section of the questionnaire asked respondents for their views on the value

of heritage, attitudes towards heritage conservation, and willingness to participate in

conservation programmes.

Next, the fourth section asked respondents for their subjective well-being and attitudes

towards various outcomes, including national identity. Composite measures of these

outcomes were derived from their responses to several questions. The components

of these measures are detailed in Appendix 1.

Finally, the questionnaire collected data on demographic information, such as gender,

ethnicity, religion, dwelling type, employment status and monthly personal income.

The general flow of the questionnaire is summarised and illustrated in Figure 2.

12



Figure 2. Flow of survey questionnaire

2.4 Quantitative data analysis

The IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 25) was used to analyse survey data.

When we began analysing the data, we were also aware that because many heritage

sites have seen many changes in form and function over the years, it is quite likely

that our sample respondents of different ages may perceive the same sites in markedly

different ways. As such, we segmented the sample into three age groups based on

key national development phases in Singapore.

In the years directly after Singapore’s independence, the Land Acquisition Act (1966)

and the Sale of Sites Programme (1967) came into effect. These enabled the state to

acquire and allocate land for public and private development (Sun, 2005; Singapore

Institute of Architects, 2013, p. 82). These facilitated the profound transformation of

Singapore’s landscape in the 1970s, with the proliferation of public housing flats on

the one hand and the creation of modernist buildings such as Singapore Conference

Hall and Golden Mile Complex on the other (Singapore Institute of Architects, 2013;

Singapore Heritage Society, 2018).

13



Later, from the mid-1980s, Singapore saw an unprecedented surge of support for

heritage conservation (Chang, 1999, Kong & Yeoh, 1994). This was reflected in the

1986 Conservation Master Plan, the first blueprint for the conservation of built heritage

(National Library Board, 2016), and the establishment of the National Heritage Board

in 1993.

Those who were familiar with Singapore before its rapid urban transformation, those

who grew up during this period of transformation, and those who grew up after heritage

conservation was systematically considered in urban planning would thus be likely to

have different perspectives on heritage. Accordingly, the sample was split into three

broad age groups (see Table 1). The responses of the corresponding age cohorts

were analysed separately.

Table 1: Segmentation of sample by age

National development phases Respondents’ year of birth

Age in 2018 N %

Pre-independence; Land Acquisition Act (Pre-1970s)

Born in 1969 or earlier 49 and above (senior)

615 40.6

Post-independence; rapid urban redevelopment (1970s–1985)

Born between 1970s and 1980s

29–48 (middle)

578 38.2

URA Conservation Master Plan (1986 onwards)

Born in 1990s or later 18–28 (youngest)

322 21.3

Total 1515 100.0

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the four dimensions of knowledge,

memories, physical appeal and perceived importance of each site for the three age

groups. Factor analysis is a statistical method used here to identify the relationships

between the heritage sites by grouping items based on their association with

underlying latent variables (factors). The analysis groups sites together based on

similarities in how they were perceived by respondents.1 In other words, a factor

analysis of how respondents evaluated different sites could reveal latent constructs

1 See Pallant, J. (2013) for more information about factor analysis.

14



about how they perceived sites similarly or differently under each of the four

dimensions.

This report also uses multivariate regression to identify variables that can predict

national identity among the three age groups. Multivariate regression is a statistical

method used to assess how well a set of variables predicts a particular outcome, and

whether a particular predictor variable is still able to predict an outcome when the

effects of other variables are controlled for.2

3. RATINGS ON FOUR MEASURES AND FACTOR ANALYSIS

3.1 Interpreting the data

Respondents were asked which of the 53 sites they were aware of and, if they were

aware, how they rated their knowledge of the sites, memories associated with the sites,

the sites’ physical appeal and how important the sites were to them. For each

dimension, respondents gave a score to every site on a scale of 1 to 7:

a. Knowledge: 1 (“I do not know anything”) to 7 (“I know a lot”)

b. Memories: 1 (“I have no memories at all”) to 7 (“I have many memories”)

c. Physical appeal: 1 (“I do not like the look of the place at all”) to 7 (“I like the look

of the place very much”)

d. Importance: 1 (“Not important to me at all”) to 7 (“Very important to me”)

These responses were compiled within each age group, producing rankings for each

measure based on the mean scores. Rankings were then compared across the age

groups — considering the evaluations of sites in relation to one another, and not

independently. This is significant because a site having a higher ranking for one group

2 See Pallant, J. (2013) for more information about multivariate regression.

15



than another does not necessarily mean that the former group reflected a higher mean

score than the latter. 3 Generally speaking, the middle and senior groups of

respondents reported greater awareness of the sites, as well as higher mean scores

of knowledge and memories. At the same time, our analysis of the four measures

above also kept in mind the proportion of respondents from each group who were

aware of the site in the first place.4

Apart from the ratings of the sites, factor analysis was carried out to identify

relationships among sites with respect to the perceptions of respondents of each age

group. For each outcome and each age group, sites were grouped together and given

labels reflecting similarities among sites loaded under the same factor. These labels

suggested the latent variables that might underlie respondents’ perceptions.

The following section details an analysis of elements that are likely to influence

evaluations of heritage sites, drawing on comparisons of key sites, including how they

were ranked and relevant factors under which they were loaded together. The mean

score that respondents of the three age groups gave each heritage site for the

respective measures is reflected in this appended map of the sites. For each age

group, the full list of ranked sites and the factors that were loaded in the four domains

of evaluation can also be found in Appendices 2 and 3.

3 For example, the Singapore Science Centre is the most well-known site for the youngest respondents (18-28 years old) and the second-most well-known for the broad middle group (29-48 years old), but the mean score of knowledge from the younger group was still lower. 4 For example, although the respondents aged 49 and above had a higher mean score of knowledge for the

Singapore Art Museum compared to those aged up to 28, a higher percentage of the youngest respondents were aware of the site.

16



3.2 Findings and discussion

While there are similarities across the groups, the perspectives of respondents of

different age groups take on particular nuances in the findings of the survey.

Furthermore, the four domains of evaluation do not stand alone as pre-existing

categories of thought, but are mutually influencing. As such, no single domain can on

its own explain why one heritage site is more valued than another, by an individual or

community. Rather, evaluations of heritage sites are much more holistic, influenced

also by the way the individual’s experiences and acquired knowledge intertwine with

the social and environmental histories of the sites.

There were several elements identified that are likely to drive these evaluations, and

the survey responses suggest that some have greater sway over public perceptions

than others. Two major drivers were distinguished — respondents’ personal

experiences, and the representation of the sites in public discourse.

Personal experiences of sites can be influenced by the function and physical condition

of sites themselves, and the surrounding social and geographical contexts. It is

unsurprising that sites that are not easily accessible to the general public were often

given lower ratings, particularly in terms of knowledge and memories. Many of the

buildings that consistently ranked below #405 for each outcome for almost every age

group are not easily accessible or were closed to the public at the time of the survey,

such as Pearl Bank Apartments, the NUS Baba House, Kallang Airport and Bukit

Timah Railway Station. Pearl Bank Apartments was a private housing estate at the

time of the survey, the NUS Baba House only accepts visits by appointment, and the

5 i.e., out of the 53 sites, respondents from each age group rated these sites one of the 13 least-known, least-

remembered and least important

17



now-disused Kallang Airport and Bukit Timah Railway Station are generally closed to

the public.

On the other hand, popularly frequented and widely accessible sites generally have

more favourable ratings. The pertinence of the site’s pragmatic relevance and

accessibility can be observed when the functions of sites change over the years. For

example, Clifford Pier was where visitors to offshore islands boarded their boats, as

well as a place of leisure. It was especially popular when shopping and dining outlets

were added to the area in the 1970s (Daniel, 1975). However, its function as a transit

and embarkation point was negated after Marina Barrage cut off access from the open

sea in 2006, and the pier was repurposed into an upscale restaurant. This might

explain the differences in the perceptions that respondents of the three age groups

had of the site, in terms of whether or not they were aware of it as well as in the

domains of knowledge, memories and importance, as Table 2 demonstrates.

Table 2: Ratings of awareness, knowledge, memories and importance for Clifford Pier

Age group 18–28 29–48 49 and above

Awareness Ranking 43 28 9

% aware 35.4 79.8 92.8

Knowledge Ranking 53 52 33

Mean score 2.81 3.53 4.38

Memories Ranking 45 39 14

Mean score 2.90 3.69 4.57

Importance Ranking 50 39 16

Mean score 3.24 3.99 4.42

*Rankings are based on ranked mean scores of all 53 sites, and mean scores are on a scale of 1–7

Meanwhile, the Singapore Art Museum was one of the 10 most important, memorable

and well-known sites for the youngest group of respondents but not the two older ones,

showing that sites can also gain relevance and appeal over time. When the former

boys’ school was repurposed as an art museum in 1995, it became a publicly

18



accessible place of leisure and education, which explains why it is relatively prominent

in the consciousness of younger respondents, as compared to other sites.

Even if the surrounding context does not negate the function of a site, as in the case

of Clifford Pier, it can affect perceptions of the site in other ways. This is reflected in

the designation of conservation districts in the 1986 Conservation Master Plan —

previously, only individual buildings were gazetted for conservation. Sultan Mosque

was ranked as the 10th most important site to the youngest group of respondents, but

17th and 24th for the middle and oldest groups, respectively. This might be due in part

to the gentrification of the surrounding Kampong Glam area, which has made it a

popular spot especially for affluent young consumers (Siau, 2018). Furthermore, one

of the factors loaded for the perception of physical attributes by respondents aged 49

and above included three sites: the State Courts, Rochor Centre and the Old Hill Street

Police Station. This was given the label of “Landmarks in the vicinity of Victoria Street”,

suggesting that the association among this sites for the older respondents may be

because of their geographical location.

The physical state of buildings generally goes hand-in-hand with their function and the

particular social context. As people grow and change, sites mature alongside them.

Their relationship of mutual care may persist, or the places and their inhabitants may

find that they no longer serve each other’s’ needs. In some cases, the sites are

maintained consistently or renovated for adaptive reuse, and remain relevant in

different ways, as the example of Singapore Art Museum has shown.

19



In other cases, though, the social climate that fostered their creation shifts, and their

aesthetics fall out of favour. The sites are left to degenerate into disrepair. This is how

we may understand a site like People’s Park Complex. In its prime, it was popularly

frequented and lauded as “majestic” (Mok, 1972); an example of cutting-edge design

influenced by the utopian visions of modernism, and all the idealism of a newly

independent country (National Library Board, 2014; Lim, 2005). But it has since faced

competition from newer shopping outlets, and any fervour for literal nation-building has

perhaps shifted its focus to ever more spectacular feats (Dyckhoff, 2017). The

declining regard for the building is accompanied by a dismal state of maintenance,

amply reported in the media (see Ng, 2016; Xu, 2017) to reinforce impressions that it

is an edifice both unbeautiful and anachronistic. Respondents from the two older

groups gave it relatively high ratings in terms of awareness, knowledge and memories,

but did not consider it much more important or aesthetically appealing as compared to

other sites than the youngest respondents did, as illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3: Ratings of awareness, knowledge, memories, physical appeal and importance for People's Park Complex

Age group 18–28 29–48 49 and above


% aware 83.9 94.3 95.6


Mean score 3.63 4.25 4.81


Mean score 3.80 4.30 4.87

Physical appeal Ranking 47 48 46

Mean score 3.81 3.69 4.15


Mean score 3.53 3.75 4.07

This leads us to consider the representation of the sites in public discourse, of which

three notable modes were identified. It was generally observed that promotional

programmes and initiatives led by the state, especially educational ones, had a

significant influence on respondents’ perceptions of sites. The Merlion is a prime

20



example. Although it has little functional utility to the average Singaporean, and it is

unlikely that most people visit it regularly, respondents across the board evaluated it

as one of the most memorable, well-known, aesthetically appealing and important

sites. This is probably because of its prominence in branding Singapore as a tourist

destination, and in the conscious promotion of a unique Singaporean identity. It also

seems to mark a shift in perceptions in the last 20 years — previous studies have

found that only a minority of Singaporeans considered the Merlion an embodiment of

Singapore heritage or liked it as a monument (Heng, 1993; Abdullah et al, 1999, in

Yeoh & Chang, 2003). Anticipating this warming of popular sentiment, Yeoh and

Chang acknowledged that despite the “hollow fable” behind the Merlion — in fact,

because of the hollowness of its meaning — it would perhaps grow to be an apt

symbol of national identity in a “nation bent on economic success” (p. 42).

Furthermore, factor analysis of responses from the two younger groups suggested

that sites might have been associated with each other because respondents would

have visited them on National Education Learning Journeys and other school trips.

With regard to the knowledge of respondents aged 29-48, Fort Siloso, Singapore

Science Centre, Telok Ayer Market, Fort Canning, the former Kallang National

Stadium and Boat Quay warehouses and shophouses loaded together. As for the

youngest group, analysis of their perceptions of importance loaded Fort Canning, the

Civilian War Memorial, Fort Siloso and the Singapore Science Centre together. These

factors were labelled “knowledge of sites visited on learning journeys” and “importance

of sites visited on learning journeys”, respectively. This association may also explain

why the two younger groups of respondents evaluated the Singapore Science Centre

as much more physically appealing than other modernist buildings. While sites like

21



Van Kleef Aquarium, the State Courts and Golden Mile Complex were ranked below

40th out of 53 on physical appeal, Singapore Science Centre was ranked 23rd for

those aged up to 28, and 24th for those aged 29-48.

A second mode of representation comes from the discourses of particular cultural or

interest-based groups. This can also have an influence on public opinion, though the

survey results seem to suggest that it is highly variable, and depends on the extent

and nature of publicity efforts as well as other features of the sites. Bukit Brown

Cemetery is a site that seems to have loomed larger in the minds of the youngest

respondents, as Table 4 demonstrates. This may be because ground-up movements

documenting and advocating the conservation of Bukit Brown Cemetery have made

extensive use of social media (Pang & Liew, 2014; Huang, 2014), which may appeal

more to younger people.

Table 4: Ratings of awareness, knowledge, memories and importance for Bukit Brown Cemetery

Age group 18-28 29-48 49 and above


% aware 45.3 50.9 51.1


Mean score 3.93 3.98 3.74


Mean score 3.16 3.06 3.19


Mean score 3.88 3.45 3.16

The Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground exemplifies a third mode of mass

representation – commercial reproduction - that may explain the relative influence of

some advocacy efforts. The propensity of the image of a site to be reproduced on a

mass scale draws on affordances from both the perceived social value of the site and

its physical traits. As Leslie Sklair writes, an architectural icon is “imbued with a special

meaning that is symbolic for a culture and/or a time, and...this special meaning has an

22



aesthetic component and vice versa” (2017, p. 16). The playground first struck a chord

with many after it was featured in the news, when the surrounding HDB flats were

slated for demolition (Ng, 2008). However, its distinctive, colourful dragon shape has

since been ripe for symbolic appropriation and commercial reproduction in the way

that a behemoth building may not have been. It is now seen as a symbol of

Singaporean design and childhood, and has become an icon of mass-produced

heritage memorabilia. The evaluations from respondents of different age groups

suggest that the nostalgic attachment to this site is a recent phenomenon, appealing

largely to the respondents aged 18 to 48, as Table 5 shows. While a relatively small

percentage of the middle group was aware of the site as compared to other sites,

those who were aware of it considered it quite aesthetically pleasing and important.

Table 5: Ratings of awareness, knowledge, memories, physical appeal and importance for Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground

Age group 18-28 29-48 49 and above


% aware 71.4 70.9 69.6


Mean score 3.97 4.42 4.20


Mean score 3.43 4.04 4.01

Physical appeal Ranking 16 12 39

Mean score 4.99 5.10 4.39


Mean score 4.05 4.63 3.85

4. SENSE OF NATIONAL IDENTITY

In this section, we will present the regression results for different age groups in relation

to the sense of national identity. Using a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being strongly disagree and

7 being strongly agree), respondents were asked to rate the extent of their sense of

national identity with the sentences “I feel a sense of belonging to Singapore”, “I have

a part to play in developing Singapore for the benefit of current and future

23



generations”, and “I will do whatever I can to support Singapore in times of national

crisis”. The responses were aggregated to derive a composite score, with higher

scores indicating a greater sense of national identity.

To identify factors that might predict national identity, we entered the factors from all

four dimensions (knowledge of sites, memories of sites, physical appeal of sites, and

perceived importance of sites) together with eight socio-demographic variables and

ratings for respondents’ perceptions of the value of heritage into a standard multiple

regression. Factors with a high reliability6 and comprising at least three items were

chosen for the regression model (the full results of the factor analysis can be found in

Appendix 3). The socio-demographic variables entered were citizenship, gender,

housing type, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, monthly personal income,

and educational attainment.

The following analysis will present the significant predictors of national identity for each

age group. Since the value of heritage was the strongest predictor of national identity

for all three groups, it will be separately addressed subsequently. Socio-demographic

variables were included in regression models to account for potential interactions with

the other variables, but their particular relationship to national identity will not be

discussed at present, as a more targeted study of national identity would be better

positioned to explain their effect. As such, the following sections will focus on the

factors pertaining to the four domains of evaluation of heritage sites.

6 i.e., Cronbach alpha ≥ 0.70. This is a measure of the internal consistency of the items comprising the factors.

24



4.1 Senior group

A total of 28 predictors were examined for sense of national identity in a standard

multiple regression model, among respondents of aged 49 and above (see Appendix

4). Subsequently, correlation analysis was conducted on the four predictors that

reached statistical significance in the regression model. The overall regression model

is statistically significant.7 Only four of the predictors made a unique statistically

significant contribution to the model (see Table 6).

The physical appeal of symbols of nationhood and development made a unique

statistically significant contribution to the model. Further analysis shows a significant

positive correlation between the physical appeal of symbols of nationhood and

development, and national identity.8 This means that those who see symbols of

nationhood and development as aesthetically pleasing are likely to have a stronger

sense of national identity. These are sites representing important aspects of

Singapore’s development into a modern nation-state, including infrastructural

development (Benjamin Sheares Bridge), international links (Changi Airport Control

Tower, Clifford Pier) and so on.

This is supported by comparable cases in the Australian context. McDonald (2011a)

writes that although many people may not have direct connection to sites such as the

Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House, these are aspects of Australia’s national

heritage recognised as truly iconic and well known. Similarly, sites such as the Changi

Airport Control Tower and the Merlion are widely recognised as iconic and

7 The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 35.9%, F (28, 586) = 13.29, p< .001. Only four variables were statistically significant, with Value of heritage recording the highest beta value (beta=0.47, p< .001). 8 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r = 0.41, n = 614, p < .01.

25



internationally associated with Singapore. The high visibility of such structures has

been significant in producing the ideal of a nation (Ashworth, 2012). Senior

respondents with a strong sense of national identity may have perceptions of aesthetic

appeal influenced by this positive judgement of the overall value of the sites.

Importance of colonial architecture made a unique statistically significant contribution

to the model. Further analysis shows a significant positive correlation between

importance of colonial architecture with intricate designs and national identity.9 This

means that senior respondents who deem colonial buildings important are likely to

have a stronger sense of national identity, likely due to their memories and knowledge

of Singapore’s past as a British colony.

Apart from their value as tourist attractions, colonial buildings are often a source of

pride to the nations in which they are located (Ooi, 1994). In this case, sites such as

Saint Andrew’s Cathedral and the former Supreme Court building provide tangible

links to Singapore’s colonial past. According to Lai (2016), the appropriation of these

symbolically potent sites of British authority in Singapore can be seen as a form of

subversion of colonial rule. In other words, these colonial buildings have acquired

different meanings as symbols of independence and nationhood in a post-war, post-

colonial state, which can serve as a source of pride. Many senior respondents are also

likely to have lived through Singapore’s transition from a British colony to an

independent city-state. These new meanings, coupled with personal experiences,

could boost the sense of national identity among senior respondents.

9 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r = 0.36, n = 587, p < .01.

26



The perceived importance of “everyday places of a bygone era” made a unique

statistically significant contribution to the model. This factor includes residential and

commercial sites such as Rochor Centre, the Tiong Bahru SIT flats and People’s Park

Complex, which were popularly frequented especially in the past. It is negatively

associated with national identity when considered in a model with all other predictors.

On its own, however, the importance of once-popular everyday places has a significant

positive relationship with national identity for respondents of the senior group.10 This

may be attributed to the perceived sociocultural significance of sites that represented

ways of life in the past. Housing estates such as social housing flats and private town

houses, as well as shopping centres (Ferguson, Harrison and Weinbren, 2010) are

considered built heritage of the contemporary past. In this case, many senior

respondents are likely to have frequented the sites loaded in this factor to run errands,

spend their leisure time or visit family and friends. They may view these places as

important quotidian public spaces, acting as significant parts of their experience of life

in Singapore and thus contributing to their national identity. As Tuan Yi-Fu writes, a

deep attachment to homeland “may come simply with familiarity and ease… with the

memory of sounds and smells, of communal activities and homely pleasures

accumulated over time.” (1977, p. 159).

This relationship changes to a negative association when other factors are included in

the regression model. This is probably due to the presence of a moderator between

the importance of these sites and national identity, which requires further examination.


27



Table 6. Significant predictors of national identity for senior respondents

Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients

Variables B Std. Error Beta

Physical appeal of symbols of nationhood and development

0.19 0.08 0.17*

Perceived importance of colonial architecture 0.09 0.04 0.14* Perceived importance of everyday places of a bygone era

-0.08 0.04 -0.12*

Value of heritage 0.48 0.04 0.47***

Notes: Overall model N = 615, *p < .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001

4.2 Middle group

Twenty-five predictors were examined for among respondents of the middle group

(see Appendix 4). The overall regression model is statistically significant.11

Knowledge of sites in learning journeys made a unique statistically significant

contribution to the model. It is negatively associated with national identity, when

considered in a model with all other predictors — respondents aged 29–48 who

acquired knowledge of these sites through school activities are less likely to have

stronger national identity.

On its own, however, knowledge of the sites featured in Learning Journeys has a

significant positive relationship with national identity.12 This points to the success of

state strategies of using historic buildings to promote national identity. The label refers

to the Learning Journeys which were introduced in 1998, where students make

learning trips to key national institutions or heritage sites (National Library Board,

2019) as part of broader National Education efforts to foster national identity and teach

“the Singapore story” (Ministry of Education, cited in Sim & Print, 2005). These efforts

are aligned with the government’s role in selecting and protecting buildings deemed

11 The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 37.2%, F (25, 552) = 14.68, p< .001. Only six variables were statistically significant, with Value of Heritage recording the highest beta value (beta=0.48, p< .001). 12 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r=0.27, n=577, p<0.01.

28



to have historic national significance (Ooi, 1994). Sites designated for conservation

are often embodied with meanings of nation identity and nationhood (Henderson,

2011b), hence they are both protected and incorporated into mass education.

A considerable proportion of the respondents aged 29–48 would have been enrolled

in educational institutes at the time when Learning Journeys were introduced. These

respondents are likely to have participated in these trips and learnt about the role of

these sites in Singapore’s historical development. This suggests that state heritage

conservation policy and education policy worked to disseminate knowledge about the

importance of various heritage sites. In turn, the respondents may also be more

ideologically aligned with the sense of national identity promoted through such efforts.

However, the relationship between knowledge of sites featured in Learning Journeys

and national identity changes when other factors are included in the regression model.

There could be a moderator between knowledge of these sites and national identity,

which should be further examined.

Memories of symbols of Singapore made a unique statistically significant contribution

to the model. Respondents aged 29–48 who have memories of sites with symbolic

meanings and values to Singapore are likely to have a stronger sense of national

identity. Further analysis shows a significant positive correlation between symbols of

Singapore that are important, and strength of national identity,13 affirming the result.

Drawing upon the heritage-memory lexicon put forth by Viejo-Rose (2015), sites such

as the Changi Airport Control Tower can be seen not only as a narrative marker of


29



collective memory that reminds of key events (e.g., opening of Changi Airport), but

also an anchor for memory, fixing it to a place and time. Many of the respondents in

the middle group, who were around 38 to 48 years old at the time of the survey, would

have been children when Changi Airport opened in 1981. They are likely to have

visited Changi Airport since, and have seen how the airport grew in passenger

numbers and flights, and won many international awards over the years. Given the

significance to national identity and sovereignty attached to these sites, these

respondents’ memories of such sites may boost their sense of national identity.

Table 7. Significant predictors of national identity for respondents aged 29–48



Education (2 groups) -0.21 0.10 -0.09* Employment Status (2 groups) 0.23 0.11 0.08* Monthly Personal Income (Currently working) 0.06 0.02 0.14*** Knowledge of sites in learning journeys -0.13 0.06 -0.16* Memories of symbols of Singapore 0.13 0.06 0.13* Value of heritage 0.61 0.05 0.48***

Notes: Overall model N = 578, *p < .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001 Education (1= Non-tertiary educated, 2=Tertiary educated) Employment status (1=Not working, 2=Working)

4.3 Youngest group

Twenty predictors were examined for among respondents of the youngest group (see

Appendix 4). A standard multiple regression model regressed the 20 predictors on

national identity. Subsequently, correlation analysis was conducted on the two

predictors that reached statistical significance in the regression model.

The overall regression model is statistically significant.14 Only two of the predictors

made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model (see Table 8).

14 The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 36.3%, F (20, 301) = 10.14, p< .001. Only two variables were statistically significant, with Value of heritage recording the highest beta value (beta=0.50, p< .001).

30



Interestingly, none of the factors associated with the four dimensions (knowledge,

memories, physical appeal and perceived importance) predicted national identity in

the youngest group. This suggests that these dimensions of heritage sites do not

contribute to strengthening national identity in respondents of this age group in any

straightforward way, or that national identity may be conceived differently for this group

of respondents. More needs to be done to strengthen the relevance of built heritage

in these dimensions for this age group, or to understand what aspects of heritage do

have an impact on their sense of national identity.

Table 8: Significant predictors of national identity for youngest respondents



Gender (2 groups) 0.27 0.11 0.12* Value of heritage 0.58 0.06 0.50***

Notes: Overall model N = 322, *p < .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001 Gender (1=Male, 2=Female)

4.4 Value of heritage

The strongest predictor for sense of national identity for the all three age groups was

value of heritage, with those who regard heritage as valuable being more likely to

indicate higher levels of national identity. Further analysis shows a significant positive

correlation between value of heritage and national identity for those aged 49 and

above,15 29–4816 and 18–28.17

This finding is consistent with the literature on heritage and collective identity. Thatcher

(2018) posited that state and historic buildings are important for reinforcing national

15 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r = 0.57, n = 615, p < .01. 16 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r = 0.57, n = 578, p < .01. 17 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r = 0.59, n = 322, p < .01.

31



identity. Besides their physical existence, historic buildings are made “historic” through

the attachment of nationalistic significance. Conversely, nation-states can draw on the

historical legitimacy of preceding sites and traditions to reinforce their own authority

(Featherstone, 1993). Hence, heritage sites are perceived not just as old buildings and

landmarks, but representations of a collective. Senior respondents in particular may

directly link the significance of heritage to their own lived experiences, in turn

enhancing their sense of national identity.

This can be attributed to the relationship between heritage and national identity. A

survey in Australia found that a majority (93 per cent) of respondents think that

heritage is a part of Australia’s identity; a large proportion (88 per cent) of respondents

also believe that it plays an important role in Australia’s culture (Allen Consulting

Group, 2005).

5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

At the heart of this study is a recognition of the need to consider the meanings held

and experiences lived by the general public and users of the built environment in

defining and creating “built heritage”. One of the key takeaways is that heritage sites

contain diverse connotations across social groups — in a consideration of public

opinion, the “public” is far from monolithic. Views of heritage sites are invariably

coloured by social context and a person’s experience accumulated over the years, but

also by the changing functions that the sites take on over time as they are subject to

adaptive reuse, left to the whims of the physical environment, or indeed demolished.

The built environment is defined not only by its planners nor its physical features, but

also by inhabitants’ everyday practices of “walking in the city” which constantly alter it

and make it their own (de Certeau, 1984).

32



This report has focused on differences of age — as time passes, heritage sites may

hold different meanings for different groups of people. Such meanings are dependent

on not just their personal lived experiences and encounters with each site, but also

encounters mediated by others. As findings from the factor analysis show, sites that

are featured in the media are perceived together — alluding to the role of media as a

modality for people to make sense of different landmarks and sites.

Engagement of support for heritage conservation needs to recognise diverse

meanings, but also pay attention to how these meanings may be shaped through

stakeholders who have their own platforms and tools, including social media. These

stakeholders include academics, public intellectuals, civil society, storytellers and so

on. Efforts to democratise planning decisions are a step in the right direction, such as

the URA’s public call for ideas for projects in the 2019 Draft Master Plan, or the

Housing and Development Board’s (HDB) partnerships with private sector

organisations and residents (HDB, 2013).

Beyond looking to state agencies as mediators of public opinion, local actors can take

steps towards meaningful place-making. Such actions can range from the individual

to the collective; from informal acts of noticing and appropriation of urban space

(Iveson, 2013), to organised efforts to systematically document and incorporate lived

experiences into maintenance and understanding of a site. This is significant not just

for sites that are already perceived as “heritage” but also in creating the heritage sites

of the future; sites that “want to be… places of identity, of relations and of history”

(Augé, 1995, p. 43).

33



Moving forward, relevant authorities can consider ways to balance existing

preferences and educating different groups to appreciate heritage in more varied

ways. Each of the four domains of evaluation measured in this study has the potential

to contribute to ongoing place-making efforts for each site. For instance, while Changi

Airport Control Tower was rated as the most important site for respondents across the

three age groups, it ranked 16th in terms of knowledge for the youngest respondents,

6th for those in the middle age group, and 8th for those 49 years old and above. While

it shows that perceptions of importance are not solely driven by how much knowledge

one has about each site, this also alludes to knowledge gaps about sites regarded as

important, and programmes can be developed to close such gaps by for instance,

connecting visitors to Changi Airport with cultural activities that will deepen knowledge

about the control tower. The example of the Merlion discussed in Chapter 3 shows

that it is certainly possible to shift attitudes over time, if not always in predictable ways.

Findings that emerged about memories of each site allude to observations that may

be made about respondents in each age group. For instance, People’s Park Complex

also appeared as one of the top ten most memorable sites for this group of

respondents, but not for the two younger groups. These findings reveal the

significance of People’s Park Complex as a recreational spot for older respondents.

While memories could be understood as the extent to which different groups of people

long for various sites, it is also potentially yearning about a different time in the past,

how they used to spend their time, how they interact with others and the moments of

significance. Such nostalgia may be based on “national memory that is based on a

34



single plot of national identity, and social memory, which consists of frameworks that

mark but do not define the individual memory” (Boym, 2001, p. xviii).

Many sites can contain both types of nostalgia for respondents. The Padang for

instance, as a site where National Day Parades are held, is significant for many

respondents, especially the older ones, because of the significance of the event. But

individuals can also see the site as significant because of other social activities and

personal memories associated with it (social memory). While much work has already

been done in capturing national memories of each site, more can be done to capture

the social memories that people have of each site, especially for sites that have seen

much change (e.g., The Cathay). Partnerships among a range of actors such as

artists, journalists and families would be useful to capture stories and photographs that

would enrich knowledge and memories about each site.

Sites that are most memorable but are no longer around for certain groups suggest a

potential sense of loss associated with the site. This may be seen in the examples of

Kallang National Stadium and Old National Library, which appear in the top 10 most

memorable sites for those aged 29 years old and above. However, such a sense of

loss may not always be negative; it depends on how the loss is perceived.

Remembrance of the Kallang National Stadium may be restorative (Boym, 2001),

which is tied to reconstructing what is lost, but it could also be reflective, which is about

remembering the stadium, for example, because of the sense of unity felt in cheering

for the Singapore soccer team. If the latter is the case, the sense of nostalgia for

Kallang National Stadium is more fluid, not strictly tied to the site itself and can be

experienced again through similar events.

35



The way respondents evaluated the physical appeal of modernist architecture is

telling. Aesthetics are not objective or neutral, but imply inherently political views of

why things should be considered beautiful (Ghertner, 2015). Sites do not have intrinsic

value dictated by their creators or managers, even if these people tend to have greater

power to determine how they should be perceived and maintained. It was observed

that modernist buildings such as Pearl Bank Apartments, Golden Mile Complex,

People’s Park Complex and Rochor Centre were evaluated as relatively unappealing.

This is perhaps reflective of the shift towards ‘spectacular’ and iconic buildings in the

post-war period (Dyckhoff, 2017), leading to the idea that buildings and sites have to

be intricate, stunning or monumental. This disjuncture between architects’ visions and

users’ experiences is a phenomenon worthy of academic study, but also translates

into two more immediate practical suggestions: a) educate the public with knowledge

about modernist buildings, b) ensure that impact assessments include criteria to

ensure that not all landmark modernist buildings which are symbolic of Singapore’s

post-independence development will be lost.

The perceived value of heritage emerged as a persistent predictor of sense of national

identity. This highlights the importance of educating the public on the value and

significance of built heritage. From our study, these efforts translate into a stronger

sense of collective solidarity in the form of national identity.

Finally, the consideration of public opinion in decisions about conservation and

defining heritage does not have to imply an approach of crude majoritarianism, but a

thoughtful consideration of the relations among various stakeholders and their

36



demands. By no means should respondents’ ratings and rankings of sites be taken

uncritically as a guide to which sites should take priority, and which can be scrapped

with minimal outcry. Nor is this simply a matter of what to preserve, overhaul, or

pulverise — the perceptions reflected in the survey are worth further scrutiny. What do

these responses say about the society that produced them? More fundamentally, what

kind of society do we want to build, and how can we develop relationships to our

physical environment to this end? Such debates are perpetually ongoing, and were

considered also in the earlier days of urban development, when advocates from the

Singapore Planning and Urban Research Group (SPUR) challenged “Western

hegemony over heritage management” that emphasised grandiosity and “authenticity”

in determining sites worthy of conservation, asserting the significance of smaller-scale

vernacular architecture (Blackburn & Tan, 2015, p. 355). There is, too, a need to look

further beyond architecture and deeper into the social life of sites. These are thus

questions not just for urban authorities and policymakers, but for everyone who lives

in Singapore and thus has a stake in its built environment.

37



REFERENCES Allen Consulting Group (2005). Valuing the Priceless: The Value of Historic Heritage in Australia,

Research Report 2. Sydney: Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australian and New Zealand. Ashworth, G. (2012). Preservation, conservation and heritage: approaches to the past in the present

through the built environment. Asian Anthropology, 10(1), 1-18. Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity, (J. Howe, Trans.). London: Verso. Blackburn, K. & Tan, A. (2015). The emergence of heritage conservation in Singapore and the

Preservation of Monuments Board (1958-96). Southeast Asian Studies,4(2), 341–364. Bond, S., & Worthing, D. (2015). Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Values and

Significance. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Boym, S. (2001). The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books. Chang, T. C. (1999). Local uniqueness in the global village: heritage tourism in Singapore.

Professional Geographer, 51(1), 91–103. Daniel, J. (1975, August 26). Clifford Pier’s $2.8 mil extension. The Straits Times, p.7. Retrieved from

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19750826-1.2.47 De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life (S. Randall, Trans.). Berkeley: University of

California Press. Dyckhoff, T. (2017). The Age of Spectacle: Adventures in Architecture and the 21st-Century City. New

York: Random House. Featherstone, M. (1993). Global and local cultures (pp. 169–187). In J. Bird et al. (Eds.), Mapping the

Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change. London: Routledge. Ferguson, R., Harrison, R., & Weinbren, D. (2010). Heritage and the recent and contemporary past

(pp. 88–125). In Benton, T. (Ed.), Understanding Heritage and Memory. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Ghertner, A. (2015). Rule by Aesthetics: World-Class City Making in Delhi. New York and New Delhi:

Oxford University Press. Goh, D. P. S. (2010). Capital and the transfiguring monumentality of Raffles Hotel. Mobilities, 5(2),

177-195. Housing and Development Board. (2013). Dwellings, Issue 1/2015. Henderson, J. C. (2001). Conserving colonial heritage: Raffles Hotel in Singapore. International

Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(1), 7–24. Henderson, J. C. (2008). Managing urban ethnic heritage: Little India in Singapore. International

Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(4), 332–346. Henderson, J. C. (2011a). Railways as heritage attractions: Singapore's Tanjong Pagar station.

Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6(1), 73–79. Henderson, J. C. (2011b). Understanding and using built heritage: Singapore's national monuments

and conservation areas. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(1), 46–61. Huang, J. (2014). Resurgent spirits of civil society activism: Rediscovering the Bukit Brown Cemetery

in Singapore. Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 87(2), 21–45.

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19750826-1.2.47

38



Iveson, K. (2013). Cities within the city: Do-it-yourself urbanism and the right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 941–956.

Kong, L. & Yeoh, B .S. A. (1994). Urban conservation in Singapore: A survey of state policies and

popular attitudes. Urban Studies, 31(2), 247–265. Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2003). The Politics of Landscapes in Singapore: Constructions of “nation”

(1st Ed.). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Kwok, K. W., Wee, C. J. W., & Chia, K. (2000). Rethinking Chinatown and Heritage Conservation in

Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society. Lai, C. K. (2016). The Padang: Centrepiece of colonial design. BiblioAsia, 12(3). Retrieved from

http://www.nlb.gov.sg/biblioasia/2016/09/08/the-padang-centrepiece-of-colonial-design/ Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. Liew, K. K., & Pang, N. (2015). Neoliberal visions, post-capitalist memories: Heritage politics and the

counter-mapping of Singapore’s cityscape. Ethnography, 16(3), pp. 331–351. Lim, W. S. W. (2005). Asian Ethical Urbanism. Singapore: World Scientific. McDonald, H. (2011a). Understanding the antecedents to public interest and engagement with

heritage. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 780–804. McDonald, H. (2011b). What are the Community Expectations for Heritage Protection? Canberra:

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Modern Heritage Matters. (2013). What is built heritage? Retrieved from

http://modernheritage.com.au/mhm/understand_heritage/what-is-built-heritage/ Mok, S. P. (1972, February 7). Majestic landmark in Chinatown. The Straits Times. Retrieved from

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19720207-1.2.88 National Heritage Board (2019). Preservation of Sites and Monuments. Retrieved from

https://www.nhb.gov.sg/what-we-do/our-work/preserve-our-stories-treasures-and-places/national-monuments-and-marked-historic-sites/preservation-of-sites-and-monuments

National Library Board. (2014). Opening of People’s Park Complex, June 1973. HistorySG. Retrieved

from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/bad9f4ed-c644-462d-8124-de3b7f208049#12 National Library Board (2016, September 16). What is the URA Conservation Master Plan? The

Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/what-is-the-ura-conservation-master-plan

National Library Board (2019). Launch of the learning journeys, 28 February 1998. HistorySG.

Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/f3a07da7-06b5-4720-9ac1-daffbfbbc469.

Ng, C. (2015, November 15). All three lifts at People’s Park Complex break down, forcing some to

climb 30 floors. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/all-three-lifts-at-peoples-park-complex-break-down-forcing-some-to-climb-30-floors

Ng, T. Y. (2008, June 11). Let’s save that dragon. The New Paper. Retrieved from NewspaperSG. Ooi, G. L. (1994). National identity, public housing and conservation in Singapore. Habitat

International, 18(2), 71–80. Ortmann, S. (2009). Singapore: the politics of inventing national identity. Journal of Current Southeast

Asian Affairs, 28(4), 23–46.

http://www.nlb.gov.sg/biblioasia/2016/09/08/the-padang-centrepiece-of-colonial-design/

http://modernheritage.com.au/mhm/understand_heritage/what-is-built-heritage/

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19720207-1.2.88



http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/bad9f4ed-c644-462d-8124-de3b7f208049#12

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/what-is-the-ura-conservation-master-plan

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/what-is-the-ura-conservation-master-plan

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/f3a07da7-06b5-4720-9ac1-daffbfbbc469

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/f3a07da7-06b5-4720-9ac1-daffbfbbc469

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/all-three-lifts-at-peoples-park-complex-break-down-forcing-some-to-climb-30-floors

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/all-three-lifts-at-peoples-park-complex-break-down-forcing-some-to-climb-30-floors

39



Pang, N., & Liew, K. K. (2014). Archiving the wild, the wild archivist: Bukit brown cemetery and

Singapore’s emerging ‘docu-tivists. Archives and Manuscripts, 42(1), 87–97. Siau, M. E. (2018, 12 August). The Big Read: Excuse me, are you a hipster? How consumerism and

affluence fuelled the rise of a youth subculture. Today. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-excuse-me-are-you-hipster-how-consumerism-and-affluence-fuelled-rise-youth

Sim, J. B. and Print, M. (2005). Citizenship education and social studies in Singapore: A national

agenda. International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education. 1(1), 58–73. Singapore Heritage Society (2018). Too Young to Die: Giving New Lease of Life to Singapore’s

Modernist Icons. Singapore Institute of Architects (2013). RUMAH 50: Review of urbanism, modern architecture and

housing — 50 Years of SIA, 1963–2013, Story of the Singapore Architectural Profession (1st Ed.) Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects.

Sklair, L. (2017). The Icon Project: Architecture, Cities, and Capitalist Globalization. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Sun, S.H. (2005). Global city making in Singapore: a real estate perspective. Progress in Planning,

64(2), 69–175. Tay, S. C. (2018, 17 September). 3 Singaporeans protecting Golden Mile Complex, People’s Park

Complex and Pearl Bank Apartments. The Peak Magazine. Retrieved from https://thepeakmagazine.com.sg/lifestyle/3-singaporeans-trying-to-protect-heritage-buildings-like-golden-mile-complex-peoples-park-complex-and-pearl-bank-apartments/

Thatcher, M. (2018). Introduction: the state and historic buildings: Preserving “the national past”. Nations and Nationalism, 24(1), 22–42.

To, K., Chong, Z. W. and Chong, K. H. (2014). Identity of a conserved housing estate in transition: the case of Tiong Bahru, Singapore. IASTE Working Papers Series 2014, Vol. 254: House, Home and Tradition. (pp. 50–75). Berkeley: International Association for the Study of Traditional Environments

Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and Place: the Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2019). The Planning Act: Draft Master Plan Written Statement.

Retrieved from https://www.ura.gov.sg/dmp19/maps/media/writtenstatement/Draft%20Maste r%20Plan%20Written%20Statement%202019.pdf

Viejo-Rose, D. (2015) Cultural heritage and memory: Untangling the ties that bind. Culture & History

Digital Journal, 4(2), e018. Xu, S. (2017, April 11). People’s Park Complex residents plagued by hour-long wait for lifts. The

Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/peoples-park-complex-residents-plagued-by-hour-long-waits-for-lifts

Yeoh, B. S. A., & Huang, S. (1996). The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore: The

case of the kampong glam historic district. Cities, 13(6), 411–422. Yeoh, B. S. A. & Chang, T.C. (2003). The rise of the Merlion: Monument and myth in the making of the

Singapore story (pp. 29–50). In R. Goh and B. S. A. Yeoh, (Eds.), Theorising the Southeast Asian City as Text. Singapore: World Scientific.

Yuen, B. (2005). Searching for place identity in Singapore. Habitat International, 29(2), 197–214.

https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-excuse-me-are-you-hipster-how-consumerism-and-affluence-fuelled-rise-youth

https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-excuse-me-are-you-hipster-how-consumerism-and-affluence-fuelled-rise-youth

https://thepeakmagazine.com.sg/lifestyle/3-singaporeans-trying-to-protect-heritage-buildings-like-golden-mile-complex-peoples-park-complex-and-pearl-bank-apartments/

https://thepeakmagazine.com.sg/lifestyle/3-singaporeans-trying-to-protect-heritage-buildings-like-golden-mile-complex-peoples-park-complex-and-pearl-bank-apartments/

https://www.ura.gov.sg/dmp19/maps/media/writtenstatement/Draft%20Maste%20r%20Plan%20Written%20Statement%202019.pdf

https://www.ura.gov.sg/dmp19/maps/media/writtenstatement/Draft%20Maste%20r%20Plan%20Written%20Statement%202019.pdf

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/peoples-park-complex-residents-plagued-by-hour-long-waits-for-lifts

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/peoples-park-complex-residents-plagued-by-hour-long-waits-for-lifts

40



Zaccheus, M. (2014, 7 June). Flats, social institutions among 75 buildings to be conserved. The

Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/flats-social-institutions-among-75-buildings-to-be-conserved

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/flats-social-institutions-among-75-buildings-to-be-conserved

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/flats-social-institutions-among-75-buildings-to-be-conserved

41



APPENDIX 1 COMPOSITE MEASURES AND RELIABILITY18

Measure Question

number Items Reliability

Value of

heritage

C1 Heritage sites and buildings are important to educate Singaporeans about the past.

.87 C2

Heritage sites and buildings are an important part of our Singapore identity.

C3 I am proud of Singapore’s heritage and culture.

Support for

heritage

conservation

D1 It is important to me that heritage sites and buildings are well looked after.

.5919

D2 Heritage conservation policies in Singapore are formulated for the good of the country as a whole.

Sense of

national

identity

E1 I feel a sense of belonging to Singapore.

.87 E2 I have a part to play in developing Singapore for the benefit of current and future generations.

E3 I will do whatever I can to support Singapore in times of national crisis.

18 Reliability is measured for composite measures using Cronbach’s alpha, which evaluates the extent to which a set of items are related to each other as a group i.e. internal consistency. It does not measure whether or not a scale is unidimensional – which can be evaluated using tests such as exploratory factor analysis although it may not always be necessary, as certain measures are already well-established and evaluated for their dimensions. As a guide, a value of anything above .7 is acceptable, whereas any value above .8 is considered good or excellent reliability. Values above .95 are too high; it probably implies that there are some items in the measure that are redundant or repetitive. 19 Since there are only two items in this composite measure, Pearson’s correlation is used to explore the relationship between these two items. As a guide, a value of .10 to .29 is considered a small correlation (i.e., weak relationship between the variables); a value .30 to .49 is considered a medium correlation (i.e., moderate relationship between the variables); and a value above .50 is considered a large correlation (i.e., a strong relationship between the variables).

42



APPENDIX 2 RANKED LIST OF SITES BY AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE, MEMORIES, PHYSICAL APPEAL AND PERCEIVED

IMPORTANCE

Table 9: 53 sites ranked by percentage of respondents aware of each site*

Aged 18-28 Aged 29-48 Aged 49 and above

Rank Site Count % Rank Site Count % Rank Site Count %

1 Singapore Botanic Gardens 314 97.5 1 Changi Airport Control Tower 566 97.9 1 Changi Airport Control Tower 602 97.9 2 Changi Airport Control Tower 312 96.9 2 Original Merlion Statue 560 96.9 2 Original Merlion Statue 601 97.7 2 Original Merlion Statue 312 96.9 3 Singapore Botanic Gardens 556 96.2 3 Singapore Botanic Gardens 593 96.4 4 Singapore Science Centre 311 96.6 4 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa

Sat) 546 94.5 4 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger

Balm Gardens) 590 95.9

5 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

304 94.4 5 People's Park Complex 545 94.3 5 People's Park Complex 588 95.6

6 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph's Institution)

291 90.4 6 The Padang 544 94.1 6 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 581 94.5

7 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 288 89.4 7 Singapore Science Centre 541 93.6 7 Kallang National Stadium 575 93.5 8 The Padang 287 89.1 8 Boat Quay Warehouses and

Shophouses 539 93.3 8 Rochor Centre 573 93.2

8 Raffles Hotel 287 89.1 9 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

538 93.1 9 Clifford Pier 571 92.8

10 Boat Quay Warehouses and Shophouses

286 88.8 9 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

538 93.1 9 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)

571 92.8

11 Fort Canning 284 88.2 11 Raffles Hotel 537 92.9 11 The Padang 570 92.7 12 Rochor Centre 275 85.4 11 Rochor Centre 537 92.9 12 Sri Mariamman Temple 567 92.2 13 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger

Balm Gardens) 274 85.1 11 Kallang National Stadium 537 92.9 13 Raffles Hotel 562 91.4

13 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)

274 85.1 14 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 530 91.7 14 Boat Quay Warehouses and Shophouses

547 88.9

15 Kallang National Stadium 272 84.5 15 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)

526 91 14 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)

547 88.9

16 People's Park Complex 270 83.9 16 CHIJMES 510 88.2 16 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 542 88.1 17 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa

Sat) 269 83.5 17 Sri Mariamman Temple 509 88.1 17 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway

Station 530 86.2

18 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

260 80.7 18 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph's Institution)

505 87.4 18 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

529 86.0

19 Sri Mariamman Temple 258 80.1 19 Fort Canning 504 87.2 19 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

528 85.9

20 The Changi Prison 256 79.5 20 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

497 86 20 Former Supreme Court Building 522 84.9

21 Civilian War Memorial 252 78.3 21 Former Supreme Court Building 494 85.5 21 Old National Library 515 83.7

43



22 Former Supreme Court Building 251 78.0 22 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 486 84.1 22 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

514 83.6

23 Fort Siloso 247 76.7 23 Fort Siloso 483 83.6 23 Singapore Science Centre 510 82.9 24 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit

Timah Road 240 74.5 24 The Changi Prison 476 82.4 24 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit

Timah Road 502 81.6

25 CHIJMES 236 73.3 25 Old Hill Street Police Station 473 81.8 25 Goodwood Park Hotel 494 80.3 26 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon

Playground 230 71.4 26 OCBC Centre 464 80.3 26 The Changi Prison 487 79.2

27 Sultan Mosque 225 69.9 26 Goodwood Park Hotel 464 80.3 27 OCBC Centre 485 78.9 28 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway

Station 216 67.1 28 Clifford Pier 461 79.8 28 The Cathay (Previously Cathay

Building) 482 78.4

29 OCBC Centre 214 66.5 29 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

458 79.2 28 Sultan Mosque 482 78.4

30 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 205 63.7 30 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

452 78.2 30 Fort Canning 479 77.9

31 Old Hill Street Police Station 204 63.4 31 Civilian War Memorial 441 76.3 31 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 473 76.9 32 Alexandra Hospital (Previously

British Military Hospital) 200 62.1 32 Old National Library 438 75.8 31 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 473 76.9

33 Saint Andrew's Cathedral 190 59.0 33 Sultan Mosque 435 75.3 33 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph's Institution)

470 76.4

34 Bukit Timah Railway Station 184 57.1 34 Saint Andrew's Cathedral 428 74 34 Civilian War Memorial 469 76.3 35 The State Courts (Previously

Subordinate Courts) 162 50.3 35 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit

Timah Road 426 73.7 35 Old Hill Street Police Station 466 75.8

36 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

150 46.6 35 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

426 73.7 36 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

462 75.1

37 Pearl Bank Apartments 146 45.3 37 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 411 71.1 37 Saint Andrew's Cathedral 458 74.5 37 Bukit Brown Cemetery 146 45.3 38 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon

Playground 410 70.9 38 Van Kleef Aquarium 456 74.1

37 The Cenotaph 146 45.3 39 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

393 68 39 Fort Siloso 445 72.4

40 Goodwood Park Hotel 143 44.4 40 Former Kallang Airport 381 65.9 40 Former Kallang Airport 435 70.7 41 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 139 43.2 41 Pearl Bank Apartments 369 63.8 41 CHIJMES 432 70.2 42 Former Kallang Airport 125 38.8 42 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 365 63.1 42 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon

Playground 428 69.6

43 Clifford Pier 114 35.4 43 Bukit Timah Railway Station 327 56.6 43 Pearl Bank Apartments 421 68.5 44 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 112 34.8 44 Thian Hock Keng Temple 324 56.1 44 Bukit Timah Railway Station 408 66.3 45 Old National Library 111 34.5 45 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial

Hall 296 51.2 44 Thian Hock Keng Temple 408 66.3

46 Thian Hock Keng Temple 110 34.2 46 Bukit Brown Cemetery 294 50.9 46 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

367 59.7

47 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

107 33.2 47 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 293 50.7 47 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

356 57.9

44



48 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)

87 27.0 48 The Cenotaph 278 48.1 48 The Cenotaph 339 55.1

49 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 82 25.5 49 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 272 47.1 49 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 322 52.4 50 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 81 25.2 50 Former Singapore Conference

Hall and Trade Union House 234 40.5 50 Bukit Brown Cemetery 314 51.1

51 NUS Baba House 61 18.9 51 Van Kleef Aquarium 187 32.4 51 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 300 48.8 52 Former Singapore Conference

Hall and Trade Union House 52 16.1 52 NUS Bukit Timah Campus

(Previously Raffles College) 173 29.9 52 NUS Bukit Timah Campus

(Previously Raffles College) 250 40.7

53 Van Kleef Aquarium 17 5.3 53 NUS Baba House 141 24.4 53 NUS Baba House 177 28.8

* For cases in which the same number of respondents were aware of several sites, all the sites were given the same ranking (the lowest in the group).

45



Table 10: 53 sites ranked by respondents' level of knowledge about each site

Rank Aged 18-28 Mean SD Aged 29-48 Mean SD Aged 49 and above Mean SD

1 Singapore Science Centre 5.10 1.56 Original Merlion statue 5.18 1.57 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

5.38 1.54

2 Original Merlion statue 4.92 1.61 Singapore Science Centre 5.17 1.55 Original Merlion statue 5.18 1.63

3 Singapore Botanic Gardens 4.64 1.54 Kallang National Stadium 5.12 1.69 The Padang 5.15 1.70

4 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

4.49 1.86 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

5.09 1.56 Old National Library 5.15 1.70

5 Fort Canning 4.43 1.78 Singapore Botanic Gardens 4.94 1.60 Kallang National Stadium 5.13 1.72

6 Kallang National Stadium 4.40 1.78 Changi Airport Control Tower 4.90 1.65 Singapore Botanic Gardens 5.08 1.65

7 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

4.39 1.72 Old National Library 4.84 1.72 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)

5.06 1.71


4.37 1.77 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)

4.83 1.62 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.00 1.78

9 The Padang 4.33 1.76 The Padang 4.82 1.73 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.99 1.71

10 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)

4.32 1.82 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses


4.84 1.74

11 Civilian War Memorial 4.23 1.78 Fort Canning 4.71 1.72 People’s Park Complex 4.81 1.72

12 Sultan Mosque 4.21 1.99 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.61 1.81 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.80 1.82

13 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses

4.13 1.83 Fort Siloso 4.58 1.73 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

4.71 1.78

14 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.11 1.79 Raffles Hotel 4.54 1.76 Rochor Centre 4.68 1.79

15 Fort Siloso 4.06 1.86 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.50 1.70 Raffles Hotel 4.64 1.87

16 Changi Airport Control Tower 4.06 1.69 Civilian War Memorial 4.48 1.80 Civilian War Memorial 4.59 1.87

17 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground

3.97 1.92 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground

4.42 1.89 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

4.57 1.84

18 The Changi Prison 3.97 1.99 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

4.37 1.75 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

4.57 1.88

19 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.93 1.92 Sultan Mosque 4.35 1.97 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

4.56 1.79

20 The Cenotaph 3.90 1.91 CHIJMES 4.35 1.82 Singapore Science Centre 4.54 1.78

21 Thian Hock Keng Temple 3.84 1.76 Thian Hock Keng Temple 4.33 1.80 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

4.54 1.88

22 Goodwood Park Hotel 3.79 1.78 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.32 1.74 Former Supreme Court Building

4.54 1.82

46



23 CHIJMES 3.78 1.81 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

4.30 1.83 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.53 1.87

24 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 3.78 1.90 The Changi Prison 4.30 1.88 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.51 1.83

25 Former Supreme Court Building 3.75 1.83 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

4.29 1.77 Goodwood Park Hotel 4.51 1.91


3.74 1.85 The Cenotaph 4.27 1.72 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

4.49 1.84


3.73 1.62 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

4.26 1.87 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)

4.47 1.80

28 Rochor Centre 3.72 1.97 People’s Park Complex 4.25 1.79 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.44 1.81

29 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

3.70 1.92 Rochor Centre 4.24 1.85 Fort Canning 4.42 1.82


3.69 1.84 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

4.24 1.73 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

4.40 1.86

31 People’s Park Complex 3.63 1.83 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

4.23 1.78 Thian Hock Keng Temple 4.39 1.87

32 Old National Library 3.62 1.72 Former Supreme Court Building 4.22 1.77 CHIJMES 4.39 1.88

33 Sri Mariamman Temple 3.62 1.87 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

4.18 1.67 Clifford Pier 4.38 1.69

34 Raffles Hotel 3.61 1.83 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.17 1.84 Old Hill Street Police Station 4.32 1.92

35 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 3.57 1.76 Goodwood Park Hotel 4.15 1.79 Sultan Mosque 4.31 1.99

36 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 3.56 1.89 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 4.11 1.85 Fort Siloso 4.29 1.77

37 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

3.56 1.91 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

4.09 1.79 Sri Mariamman Temple 4.24 1.97




4.20 1.88

39 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 3.52 1.81 Sri Mariamman Temple 4.03 1.85 OCBC Centre 4.18 1.88

40 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

3.52 1.81 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.98 1.85 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

4.17 1.87

41 NUS Baba House 3.44 1.86 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 3.96 1.77 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 4.17 1.95

42 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

3.33 1.65 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 3.89 1.77 The Cenotaph 4.17 1.88

43 Old Hill Street Police Station 3.29 1.85 Old Hill Street Police Station 3.88 1.83 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd

4.14 2.03

44 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.27 1.73 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.82 1.81 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

4.14 1.85

45 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.24 1.76 OCBC Centre 3.82 1.79 Pearl Bank Apartments 4.13 1.83

47




3.23 1.81 Pearl Bank Apartments 3.79 1.80 The Changi Prison 4.09 1.94

47 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.22 1.80 Former Kallang Airport 3.79 1.73 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.96 1.88

48 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 3.21 1.76 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

3.76 1.71 NUS Baba House 3.95 1.89

49 OCBC Centre 3.21 1.82 NUS Baba House 3.70 1.74 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)

3.92 1.92

50 Former Kallang Airport 3.12 1.70 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)

3.68 1.76 Former Kallang Airport 3.91 1.86

51 Pearl Bank Apartments 3.08 1.80 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.55 1.71 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.78 1.92

52 Van Kleef Aquarium 2.94 2.08 Clifford Pier 3.53 1.61 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.75 1.86

53 Clifford Pier 2.81 1.46 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.43 1.69 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.74 1.96

48



Table 11: 53 sites ranked by respondents' memories of each site


1 Singapore Science Centre 5.41 1.45 Kallang National Stadium 5.30 1.66 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

5.44 1.52


4.91 1.70 Singapore Science Centre 5.30 1.47 The Padang 5.24 1.67

3 Original Merlion statue 4.81 1.67 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

5.24 1.63 Original Merlion statue 5.17 1.65

4 Singapore Botanic Gardens 4.72 1.69 Original Merlion statue 5.21 1.52 Singapore Botanic Gardens 5.16 1.64


4.68 1.83 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.18 1.67 Old National Library 5.13 1.74



5.01 1.56 Kallang National Stadium 5.12 1.73

7 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.47 1.93 Singapore Botanic Gardens 4.98 1.60 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 5.03 1.70

8 Fort Canning 4.46 1.87 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses


5.01 1.69


4.46 1.74 Old National Library 4.90 1.85 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.00 1.80


4.38 2.06 The Padang 4.84 1.69 Peoples Park Complex 4.87 1.68

11 The Padang 4.29 1.91 Fort Canning 4.66 1.77 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.77 1.83

12 Changi Airport Control Tower 4.26 2.00 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.61 1.76 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

4.75 1.78


4.02 1.79 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.56 1.82 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses

4.72 1.80

14 Kallang National Stadium 4.02 2.13 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

4.50 1.69 Clifford Pier 4.57 1.78

15 Fort Siloso 4.00 1.88 Fort Siloso 4.42 1.81 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

4.55 1.90

16 Sultan Mosque 3.99 2.09 CHIJMES 4.40 1.77 Rochor Centre 4.55 1.88

17 Civilian War Memorial 3.97 1.85 Peoples Park Complex 4.30 1.77 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

4.54 1.82

18 CHIJMES 3.97 1.87 Rochor Centre 4.29 1.81 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.51 1.86

19 Rochor Centre 3.80 1.95 Raffles Hotel 4.27 1.76 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

4.41 1.81

20 Peoples Park Complex 3.80 1.93 Goodwood Park Hotel 4.19 1.74 Raffles Hotel 4.38 1.90

21 Goodwood Park Hotel 3.71 1.91 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)


4.38 1.78

22 The Cenotaph 3.71 1.86 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

4.15 1.75 Chinese temple on Kusu Island

4.38 1.87

49



23 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 3.67 2.05 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.13 1.79 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

4.37 1.97

24 Thian Hock Keng Temple : Attributes

3.65 1.83 Civilian War Memorial 4.08 1.78 Goodwood Park Hotel 4.36 1.91

25 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 3.59 1.89 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.08 1.94 Singapore Science Centre 4.35 1.83

26 Sri Mariamman Temple 3.48 1.95 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

4.07 1.94 Civilian War Memorial 4.33 1.88



4.07 1.80 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.30 1.94


3.44 2.01 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.06 1.89 Fort Canning 4.28 1.88


3.43 2.19 The Cenotaph 4.05 1.86 Former Supreme Court Building

4.26 1.94

30 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 3.39 1.82 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground

4.04 2.08 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

4.24 1.90

31 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 3.34 1.87 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

4.02 1.83 CHIJMES 4.20 1.94


3.33 2.00 Sultan Mosque 4.01 2.06 Fort Siloso 4.10 1.84


3.32 1.77 Thian Hock Keng Temple : Attributes

3.98 1.84 Old Hill Street Police Station 4.08 1.91

34 Former Supreme Court Building 3.31 1.92 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)


4.07 1.92


3.31 1.92 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 3.82 1.92 Thian Hock Keng Temple : Attributes

4.06 1.96

36 Old Hill Street Police Station 3.23 1.78 Former Supreme Court Building 3.74 1.82 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

4.05 1.87

37 Raffles Hotel 3.19 1.88 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

3.73 1.88 Sultan Mosque 4.04 2.05

38 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 3.18 1.93 Sri Mariamman Temple 3.72 1.88 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground

4.01 2.01


3.18 2.01 Clifford Pier 3.69 1.81 OCBC Centre 4.00 1.91

40 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.16 1.96 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

3.68 1.86 Sri Mariamman Temple 3.97 2.01

41 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.10 1.74 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

3.64 1.73 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd

3.95 2.05


3.08 1.88 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.57 1.79 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 3.94 1.94


3.06 1.89 OCBC Centre 3.55 1.80 The Cenotaph 3.91 1.91

50



44 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.02 1.89 Pearl Bank Apartments 3.53 1.87 Pearl Bank Apartments 3.90 1.87

45 Clifford Pier 2.90 1.69 Old Hill Street Police Station 3.52 1.81 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.77 1.94

46 Pearl Bank Apartments 2.87 1.79 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 3.51 1.81 Former Kallang Airport 3.74 1.92

47 NUS Baba House 2.87 1.74 Former Kallang Airport 3.42 1.83 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.72 1.90


2.84 1.78 NUS Baba House 3.35 1.71 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

3.72 1.93

49 Old National Library 2.74 1.91 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.35 1.77 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)

3.67 1.95

50 OCBC Centre 2.67 1.76 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)

3.22 1.82 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.65 1.87

51 The Changi Prison 2.66 2.02 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.18 1.78 NUS Baba House 3.64 1.84

52 Former Kallang Airport 2.46 1.61 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.06 1.89 The Changi Prison 3.43 2.00

53 Van Kleef Aquarium 2.12 1.69 The Changi Prison 3.05 1.97 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.19 2.01

51



Table 12: 53 sites ranked by respondents' assessment of the physical appeal of each site


1 Singapore Botanic Gardens 5.85 1.24 Original Merlion statue 5.75 1.30 Original Merlion statue 5.65 1.45

2 Original Merlion statue 5.61 1.42 Singapore Botanic Gardens 5.66 1.39 Singapore Botanic Gardens 5.60 1.45

3 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.35 1.38 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.64 1.38 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.51 1.44


5.29 1.43 Raffles Hotel 5.45 1.40 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

5.43 1.52

5 CHIJMES 5.28 1.43 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)


5.32 1.54

6 Sultan Mosque 5.27 1.59 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 5.32 1.62 Raffles Hotel 5.32 1.59


5.26 1.46 CHIJMES 5.30 1.50 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 5.28 1.54

8 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 5.17 1.51 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses

5.23 1.46 The Padang 5.28 1.57

9 Clifford Pier 5.14 1.36 Former Supreme Court Building 5.17 1.57 Goodwood Park Hotel 5.26 1.55


5.13 1.52 Goodwood Park Hotel 5.17 1.49 Clifford Pier 5.18 1.48

11 Old Hill Street Police Station 5.06 1.50 Sultan Mosque 5.14 1.68 Former Supreme Court Building

5.16 1.67

12 Thian Hock Keng Temple 5.01 1.44 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground


5.14 1.57

13 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 5.00 1.50 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)

5.07 1.43 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 5.13 1.55

14 Raffles Hotel 5.00 1.52 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

5.06 1.57 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 5.10 1.66

15 Goodwood Park Hotel 4.99 1.46 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

5.00 1.65 CHIJMES 5.08 1.68


4.99 1.71 Thian Hock Keng Temple 4.99 1.62 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses

5.07 1.60

17 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd

4.96 1.51 Clifford Pier 4.98 1.38 Old National Library 5.04 1.64


4.91 1.38 Kallang National Stadium 4.97 1.57 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

5.01 1.61

19 NUS Baba House 4.89 1.56 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.97 1.51 Kallang National Stadium 4.99 1.61

20 Civilian War Memorial 4.88 1.42 Old National Library 4.96 1.69 Thian Hock Keng Temple 4.88 1.75

52



21 Former Supreme Court Building

4.87 1.52 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 4.96 1.68 Sultan Mosque 4.88 1.75

22 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 4.83 1.53 The Padang 4.93 1.56 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 4.82 1.72

23 Singapore Science Centre 4.81 1.65 NUS Baba House 4.93 1.54 Old Hill Street Police Station 4.79 1.73

24 Sri Mariamman Temple 4.78 1.57 Singapore Science Centre 4.87 1.47 Civilian War Memorial 4.78 1.69

25 Rochor Centre 4.77 1.71 Old Hill Street Police Station 4.86 1.71 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd

4.73 1.82


4.77 1.79 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.83 1.48 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.68 1.72


4.72 1.61 Fort Canning 4.79 1.65 Sri Mariamman Temple 4.66 1.82

28 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.66 1.54 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.77 1.62 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

4.65 1.65

29 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.63 1.38 Sri Mariamman Temple 4.75 1.67 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

4.63 1.65

30 Fort Canning 4.60 1.63 Civilian War Memorial 4.72 1.67 NUS Baba House 4.60 1.72


4.51 1.62 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)


4.60 1.72

32 Kallang National Stadium 4.50 1.71 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 4.68 1.60 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.54 1.75

33 The Cenotaph 4.46 1.46 The Cenotaph 4.65 1.59 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

4.51 1.74

34 The Padang 4.45 1.57 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

4.60 1.66 Fort Canning 4.46 1.82


4.44 1.37 Fort Siloso 4.58 1.62 OCBC Centre 4.45 1.59

36 Fort Siloso 4.43 1.51 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall 4.56 1.51 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

4.44 1.74


4.41 1.59 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.45 1.70 Singapore Science Centre 4.44 1.68



4.44 1.64 Rochor Centre 4.40 1.68

39 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.27 1.69 Rochor Centre 4.39 1.70 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground

4.39 1.73

40 Old National Library 4.15 1.43 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.25 1.66 The Cenotaph 4.37 1.81

41 Pearl Bank Apartments 4.10 1.66 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

4.19 1.72 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.37 1.75

42 Bukit Timah Railway Station 4.07 1.60 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

4.12 1.70 Fort Siloso 4.34 1.76


4.04 1.61 Pearl Bank Apartments 4.00 1.80 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

4.30 1.74

53





3.96 1.64 Pearl Bank Apartments 4.19 1.72


3.88 1.82 OCBC Centre 3.93 1.69 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)

4.17 1.76



3.80 1.63 Peoples Park Complex 4.15 1.75

47 Peoples Park Complex 3.81 1.65 Former Kallang Airport 3.77 1.74 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)

4.03 1.66

48 OCBC Centre 3.73 1.62 Peoples Park Complex 3.69 1.73 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.98 1.85

49 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.64 1.62 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)


50 Former Kallang Airport 3.48 1.52 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

3.57 1.59 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

3.74 1.69


3.45 1.52 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.51 1.69 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.74 1.90

52 Van Kleef Aquarium 3.35 1.58 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.39 1.84 The Changi Prison 3.51 1.89

53 The Changi Prison 3.21 1.69 The Changi Prison 3.39 1.83 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.26 1.86

54



Table 13. 53 sites ranked by respondents' level of perceived importance of each site


1 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.00 1.81 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.59 1.57 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.42 1.76

2 Original Merlion statue 4.99 1.82 Original Merlion statue 5.51 1.54 Original Merlion statue 5.34 1.75

3 Singapore Science Centre 4.89 1.78 Singapore Science Centre 5.19 1.54 Singapore Botanic Gardens 5.25 1.73

4 Singapore Botanic Gardens 4.83 1.69 Singapore Botanic Gardens 5.18 1.59 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 5.16 1.77


4.73 1.76 Kallang National Stadium 5.01 1.70 The Padang 5.16 1.82


4.62 1.72 Old National Library 4.97 1.86 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

4.98 1.82


4.56 1.66 The Padang 4.90 1.76 Old National Library 4.97 1.83

8 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.52 1.76 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)

4.81 1.62 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.91 1.76


4.49 1.74 Fort Canning 4.81 1.76 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)

4.69 1.84

10 Sultan Mosque 4.49 2.19 MacRitchie Reservoir Park 4.81 1.73 Kallang National Stadium 4.66 1.87

11 Civilian War Memorial 4.47 1.78 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)

4.80 1.77 Former Supreme Court Building

4.57 2.02

12 Thian Hock Keng Temple 4.46 1.80 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses


4.54 1.88

13 Fort Canning 4.37 1.88 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

4.67 1.84 Civilian War Memorial 4.49 1.97

14 The Padang 4.36 1.80 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground


4.46 1.95


4.24 1.90 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.63 1.75 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)

4.46 1.92

16 The Cenotaph 4.24 1.85 Thian Hock Keng Temple 4.60 1.81 Clifford Pier 4.42 1.84

17 Kallang National Stadium 4.14 1.94 Sultan Mosque 4.59 2.09 Raffles Hotel 4.42 2.00

18 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.13 1.78 Civilian War Memorial 4.56 1.90 Thian Hock Keng Temple 4.36 2.02

19 CHIJMES 4.13 1.77 The Cenotaph 4.56 1.81 Singapore Science Centre 4.35 1.90

20 Fort Siloso 4.12 1.83 Former Supreme Court Building 4.52 1.94 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

4.29 1.96

21 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd

4.07 1.97 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.50 1.83 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd

4.29 2.13

55




4.05 2.03 Raffles Hotel 4.49 1.78 CHIJMES 4.25 2.05

23 Old National Library 4.03 1.84 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)

4.49 1.81 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.25 2.02

24 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 3.94 1.93 CHIJMES 4.40 1.81 Sultan Mosque 4.21 2.20


3.93 1.84 Fort Siloso 4.39 1.92 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 4.19 2.08

26 Former Supreme Court Building

3.91 1.86 NUS Baba House 4.33 1.85 Fort Canning 4.19 2.05

27 Sri Mariamman Temple 3.90 2.02 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 4.28 1.90 Goodwood Park Hotel 4.19 1.98

28 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 3.89 1.84 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)

4.24 1.88 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.18 1.96

29 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.88 1.95 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)


4.18 1.85

30 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 3.88 1.80 Van Kleef Aquarium 4.21 1.87 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station

4.16 1.96

31 Rochor Centre 3.84 1.90 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

4.19 1.78 The Cenotaph 4.12 2.00


3.78 1.88 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.17 1.92 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall

4.12 2.01

33 Goodwood Park Hotel 3.77 1.79 Goodwood Park Hotel 4.14 1.74 Old Hill Street Police Station 4.10 1.99



4.09 1.89 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)

4.08 1.90

35 NUS Baba House 3.72 1.87 Sri Mariamman Temple 4.09 1.96 NUS Baba House 4.07 1.92


3.70 1.65 Old Hill Street Police Station 4.09 1.86 Peoples Park Complex 4.07 1.94


3.68 1.71 Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 4.09 1.89 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.05 2.00

38 Raffles Hotel 3.56 1.80 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 4.02 1.99 Fort Siloso 4.03 2.00


3.56 1.81 Clifford Pier 3.99 1.79 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)

4.00 1.92

40 Old Hill Street Police Station 3.55 1.71 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)

3.96 1.75 Rochor Centre 3.98 1.93

41 Peoples Park Complex 3.53 1.79 Rochor Centre 3.93 1.85 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.96 2.01

42 The Changi Prison 3.49 2.01 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)


3.93 1.95

43 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.47 1.67 Peoples Park Complex 3.75 1.83 Sri Mariamman Temple 3.92 2.12


3.45 1.85 OCBC Centre 3.59 1.80 OCBC Centre 3.88 1.87

56






3.85 1.95


3.43 1.84 The Changi Prison 3.58 2.07 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)

3.68 1.85



3.50 1.86 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.61 1.94

48 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.30 1.70 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House


49 Pearl Bank Apartments 3.26 1.80 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.45 1.94 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House

3.55 1.85

50 Clifford Pier 3.24 1.67 Former Kallang Airport 3.45 1.84 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.54 2.04

51 OCBC Centre 3.21 1.73 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road

3.41 1.86 Pearl Bank Apartments 3.43 1.84

52 Former Kallang Airport 3.06 1.81 Pearl Bank Apartments 3.41 1.88 The Changi Prison 3.36 2.07

53 Van Kleef Aquarium 3.00 1.87 Bukit Timah Railway Station 3.28 1.81 Bukit Brown Cemetery 3.16 2.02

57



APPENDIX 3A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE

Table 14. Pattern matrix for “knowledge” among senior respondents

Aged 49 and above (Knowledge) Reliability % of

variance Factor loading

Knowledge of socio-cultural, historical and economic symbols of Singapore (Factor 1)

0.96 17.95

Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.737

CHIJMES 0.714

Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.656

Goodwood Park Hotel 0.636

Van Kleef Aquarium 0.588

Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution) 0.576

Fort Canning 0.564

OCBC Centre 0.559

Old National Library 0.553

The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building) 0.546

Fort Siloso 0.546

Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.537

Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre) 0.502

Knowledge of popular places of leisure in 1980s-1990s (Factor 2) 0.91 14.74

Peoples Park Complex 0.702

Rochor Centre 0.667

Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens) 0.653

Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex) 0.605

Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat) 0.602

Original Merlion statue 0.521

Knowledge of symbols of nationhood and development (Factor 3) 0.90 13.32


Benjamin Sheares Bridge 0.711

Changi Airport Control Tower 0.703

Clifford Pier 0.699

Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.619

The Padang 0.554

Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.543

MacRitchie Reservoir Park 0.504

Knowledge of religious and cultural sites (Factor 4) 0.92 10.82

Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.691

Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall 0.639

The Cenotaph 0.581

Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.555

Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground 0.553

Sri Mariamman Temple 0.506

Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings

58



Table 15. Pattern matrix for “knowledge” among middle-aged respondents

Aged 29-48 (Knowledge) Reliability % of


Knowledge of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.95 18.66




The Padang 0.668


Raffles Hotel 0.623


Old Hill Street Police Station 0.557

Former Supreme Court Building 0.522


Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses 0.501

Knowledge of sites in learning journeys (Factor 2) 0.92 12.01

Fort Siloso 0.636

Singapore Science Centre 0.603


Fort Canning 0.575

Kallang National Stadium 0.562


Knowledge of social institutions (Factor 3) 0.90 11.38

Sultan Mosque 0.629

The Changi Prison 0.600


Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital) 0.533

The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts) 0.508


Bukit Brown Cemetery 0.504

Knowledge of early communities in Singapore (Factor 4) 0.89 9.51



Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.527


The Cenotaph 0.501

Knowledge of sites for education and learning (Factor 5) 0.84 7.34





59



Table 16. Pattern matrix for “knowledge” among youngest respondents

Aged 18-28 (Knowledge) Reliability % of


Knowledge of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.95 19.78



The Padang 0.706

Raffles Hotel 0.687




Rochor Centre 0.609

Civilian War Memorial 0.580







Knowledge of religious/cultural institutions built by immigrants in the colonial period (Factor 2)

0.77 8.74


CHIJMES 0.618


Knowledge of sites for education and learning (Factor 3) 0.56 6.79

NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College) 0.638


Knowledge of pre-independence pioneers (Factor 4) 0.69 6.11



Knowledge of war heritage (Factor 5) 0.59 6.09

The Cenotaph 0.734

Fort Siloso 0.526


60



APPENDIX 3B FACTOR ANALYSIS OF MEMORIES

Table 17. Pattern matrix for “memories” among senior respondents

Aged 49 and above (Memories) Reliability % of


Memories of socio-cultural and historical symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.93 12.13



Fort Siloso 0.567

Fort Canning 0.551

CHIJMES 0.543





Memories of state and commercial sites (Factor 2) 0.91 11.92





Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House 0.534


Raffles Hotel 0.505

Memories of symbols of nationhood and development (Factor 3) 0.84 11.62

Clifford Pier 0.627


The Padang 0.592




Memories of sites of reverence (Factor 4) 0.85 9.78


The Cenotaph 0.609



Memories of popular places of leisure in 1980s-1990s (Factor 5) 0.81 9.71






61



Table 18. Pattern matrix for “memories” among middle-aged respondents

Aged 29-48 (Memories) Reliability % of


Memories of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.80 9.51






The Padang 0.521

Memories of places of leisure and entertainment (Factor 2) 0.51 8.94

CHIJMES 0.665


Memories of sites of reverence (Factor 3) 0.88 8.35

The Cenotaph 0.717





Memories of popular retail sites in the 1980s and 1990s (Factor 4) 0.76 6.92

People’s Park Complex 0.709


Rochor Centre 0.539

Memories of popular dating sites in the 1980s and 1990s (Factor 5) 0.66 6.86


Clifford Pier 0.544


Memories of sites of ‘power’ (Factor 6) 0.51 6.36

Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House 0.706


Memories of growing up years (Factor 7) 0.67 5.16





62



Table 19. Pattern matrix for “memories” among youngest respondents

Aged 18-28 (Memories) Reliability % of


Memories of places of leisure and entertainment (Factor 1) 0.72 7.23

CHIJMES 0.707



Memories of places where important events occurred (Factor 2) 0.73 7.03



The Padang 0.506

Memories of night-time hangouts (Factor 3) 0.80 6.91

The Cenotaph 0.684

Sultan Mosque 0.653


Memories of iconic landmarks (Factor 4) 0.73 6.78




Memories of Christian religious sites (Factor 5) 0.49 6.07



Memories of hipster and instagrammable sites (Factor 6) 0.36 5.73




63



APPENDIX 3C FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PHYSICAL APPEAL

Table 20. Pattern matrix for “physical appeal” among senior respondents

Aged 49 and above (Physical appeal) Reliability % of


Physical appeal of colonial architecture (Factor 1) 0.91 11.51


Raffles Hotel 0.670






Physical appeal of socio-cultural and historical symbols of Singapore (Factor 2)

0.84 10.21




Fort Canning 0.530

Fort Siloso 0.523

Physical appeal of symbols of nationhood and development (Factor 3) 0.85 10.15




The Padang 0.580


Clifford Pier 0.560



Physical appeal of sites of reverence (Factor 4) 0.87 8.68




The Cenotaph 0.522

Physical appeal of religious and cultural sites (Factor 5) 0.86 7.57

Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 0.685

NUS Baba House 0.634



Physical appeal of landmarks along Victoria Street, Hill Street to New Bridge Road (Factor 6)

0.78 6.26


Rochor Centre 0.568



64



Table 21. Pattern matrix for “physical appeal” among middle-aged respondents

Aged 29-48 (Physical appeal) Reliability % of




CHIJMES 0.718

Raffles Hotel 0.678






Physical appeal of sites related to the history of Singapore's independence (Factor 2)

0.83 9.32


Fort Siloso 0.638

Fort Canning 0.582



Physical appeal of cultural and religious sites (Factor 3) 0.84 7.21





Physical appeal of early housing developments in the city (Factor 4) 0.79 5.28

Pearl Bank Apartments 0.665

Rochor Centre 0.584


Physical appeal of historical transport infrastructure (Factor 5) 0.67 5.24


Clifford Pier 0.650

Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road 0.606

Physical appeal of iconic landmarks (Factor 6) 0.63 4.69




Physical appeal of natural heritage (Factor 7) 0.55 4.59




65



Table 22. Pattern matrix for “physical appeal” among youngest respondents

Aged 18-28 (Physical appeal) Reliability % of



Raffles Hotel 0.693



CHIJMES 0.598



Physical appeal of Singaporean citizenship markers (Factor 2) 0.79 9.41




The Padang 0.565


Physical appeal of sites in conservation news (Factor 3) 0.76 5.75

Pearl Bank Apartments 0.713



Physical appeal of places of leisure (Factor 4) 0.42 5.45


Fort Canning 0.575

Physical appeal of places of worship (Factor 5) 0.75 4.87



Physical appeal of historical rail transport infrastructure (Factor 6) 0.78 4.82

Bukit Timah Railway Station 0.709

Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road 0.595


Physical appeal of places of learning (Factor 7) 0.52 4.17



Physical appeal of Peranakan architecture (Factor 8) 0.69 4.12



Physical appeal of natural heritage (Factor 9) 0.54 3.68




66



APPENDIX 3D FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE

Table 23. Pattern matrix for “perceived importance” among senior respondents

Aged 49 and above (Importance) Reliability % of


Perceived importance of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.90 13.02

The Padang 0.678




Clifford Pier 0.597





Perceived importance of socio-cultural, historic and religious sites (Factor 2) 0.91 10.86



The Cenotaph 0.556


NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College) 0.512

Sultan Mosque 0.509

Perceived importance of colonial architecture (Factor 3) 0.93 10.39



CHIJMES 0.597


Raffles Hotel 0.536


Perceived importance of everyday places of a bygone era (Factor 4) 0.85 10.06

People's Park Complex 0.651


Rochor Centre 0.586


Perceived importance of Chinese religious sites (Factor 5) 0.71 8.87



Perceived importance of demolished sites (Factor 6) 0.56 6.75




67



Table 24. Pattern matrix for “perceived importance” among middle-aged respondents

Aged 29-48 (Importance) Reliability % of



Raffles Hotel 0.694



CHIJMES 0.620



The Padang 0.553

Fort Canning 0.540


Perceived importance of places of worship (Factor 2) 0.90 9.92






Perceived importance of early housing and retail developments in the city (Factor 3)

0.80 8.47


Rochor Centre 0.602


Perceived importance of social institutions (Factor 4) 0.71 7.42



Sultan Mosque 0.522

Perceived importance of major air and land transport infrastructure (Factor 5)

0.34 6.94



Perceived importance of sites related to the history of Singapore's independence (Factor 6)

0.88 6.41

The Cenotaph 0.611





68



Table 25. Pattern matrix for “perceived importance” among youngest respondents

Aged 18-28 (Importance) Reliability % of





The Padang 0.680




Raffles Hotel 0.508

Perceived importance of learning journey sites (Factor 2) 0.88 8.54

Fort Canning 0.651


Fort Siloso 0.573


Perceived importance of sites for law and order (Factor 3) 0.84 6.39



The Changi Prison 0.605

Perceived importance of unique Singaporean architecture (Factor 4) 0.65 6.06



Perceived importance of places of leisure (Factor 5) 0.76 5.77




Perceived importance of Christian religious sites (Factor 6) 0.74 5.39



Perceived importance of Early Chinese community (Factor 7) 0.85 4.87




Perceived importance of Nanyang Chinese diaspora(Factor 8) 0.62 4.22




69



APPENDIX 4 REGRESSION MODELS FOR NATIONAL IDENTITY Table 26. Regression model predicting national identity for senior respondents



(Constant) 1.71 0.37 Citizenship (2 groups) 0.11 0.13 0.03 Gender (2 groups) -0.08 0.08 -0.03 Ethnicity (3 groups) 0.07 0.07 0.04 Housing type (4 groups) -0.08 0.04 -0.07 Marital status (3 groups) 0.07 0.08 0.03 Education (3 groups) -0.03 0.07 -0.02 Employment Status (2 groups) 0.10 0.08 0.04 Monthly Personal Income (Currently working) 0.01 0.02 0.01 Knowledge of sociocultural historical and economic symbols of Singapore

0.02 0.06 0.03

Knowledge of popular places of leisure in 1980s-1990s

0.10 0.07 0.12

Knowledge of symbols of nationhood and development

-0.01 0.08 -0.01

Knowledge of religious and cultural sites 0.04 0.05 0.06 Memories of socio-cultural and historical symbols of Singapore

0.02 0.06 0.02

Memories of state and commercial sites -0.03 0.05 -0.04 Memories of symbols of nationhood and development

-0.08 0.07 -0.09

Memories of historical and religious sites of reverence

-0.03 0.04 -0.05

Memories of popular places of leisure in 1980s-1990s

-0.02 0.05 -0.03

Physical appeal of colonial architecture -0.05 0.05 -0.06 Physical appeal of socio-cultural and historical symbols of Singapore

-0.03 0.05 -0.03

Physical appeal of symbols of nationhood and development

0.19 0.08 0.17*

Physical appeal of sites of reverence 0.01 0.04 0.02 Physical appeal of religious and cultural sites 0.00 0.04 0.01 Physical appeal of landmarks along Victoria Street, Hill Street to New Bridge Road

0.00 0.04 0.00

Perceived importance of symbols of Singapore 0.06 0.06 0.08 Perceived importance of socio-cultural, historic and religious sites

0.01 0.03 0.01

Perceived importance of colonial architecture 0.09 0.04 0.14* Perceived importance of everyday places of a bygone era

-0.08 0.04 -0.12*


Notes: Overall model N = 615, *p < .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001 Citizenship (1=Local-born Singapore citizens, 2=Foreign-born Singapore citizens) Gender (1=Male, 2=Female) Ethnicity (1=Chinese, 2=Malay, 3=Indian/ Eurasian / Others) Housing type (1=HDB 1, 2, 3 room, 2=HDB 4 room, 3=HDB 5 room, 4=Private condominium / Apartment/ Landed property) Marital status (1=Never married, 2-Married, 3=Separated/ Divorced/ Widowed) Education (1=No Qualification/ Primary, 2=Secondary/ Post-Secondary, 3=Polytechnic/ Professional Qualifications / University) Employment status (1=Not working, 2=Working) Monthly personal income from work (currently working) (1=No income, 2=Below $500, 3=$500-$999, 4=$1000-$1499, 5=$1500-$1999, 6=$2000-$2999, 7=$3000-$3999, 8=$4000-$4999, 9=$5000-$5999, 10=$6000-$6999, 11=$7000-$7999, 12=$8000-$8999, 13=$9000-$9999, 14=$10,000 and above) Value of heritage (1 means ‘Not valuable at all’ and 7 means ‘Very valuable’) National identity (1 means ‘Very weak sense of national identity’ and 7 means ‘Very strong sense of national identity’)

70



Table 27. Regression model predicting national identity for middle-age respondents



(Constant) 0.69 0.43 Citizenship (2 groups) 0.01 0.12 0.00 Gender (2 groups) -0.07 0.09 -0.03 Ethnicity (3 groups) 0.13 0.07 0.07 Housing type (4 groups) -0.05 0.05 -0.04 Education (2 groups) -0.21 0.10 -0.09* Employment Status (2 groups) 0.23 0.11 0.08* Monthly Personal Income (Currently working) 0.06 0.02 0.14*** Knowledge of symbols of Singapore 0.07 0.07 0.08 Knowledge of sites in learning journeys -0.13 0.06 -0.16* Knowledge of social institutions -0.10 0.06 -0.13 Knowledge of early communities in Singapore 0.04 0.05 0.06 Knowledge of sites for education and learning -0.01 0.03 -0.01 Memories of symbols of Singapore 0.13 0.06 0.13* Memories of sites of reverence 0.00 0.04 0.01 Memories of popular 80s-90s retail sites 0.04 0.04 0.05 Physical appeal of colonial architecture 0.03 0.06 0.03 Physical appeal of sites related to history of Singapore’s independence

0.06 0.06 0.07

Physical appeal of cultural and religious sites 0.02 0.04 0.03 Physical appeal of early housing developments 0.00 0.04 0.00 Perceived importance of symbols of Singapore 0.12 0.06 0.14 Perceived importance of places of worship -0.04 0.04 -0.06 Perceived importance of early housing and retail developments

-0.01 0.05 -0.01

Perceived importance of social institutions -0.04 0.04 -0.06 Perceived importance of sites related to the history of independence

0.02 0.04 0.02


Notes: Overall model N = 578, *p < .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001 Citizenship (1=Local-born Singapore citizens, 2=Foreign-born Singapore citizens) Gender (1=Male, 2=Female) Ethnicity (1=Chinese, 2=Malay, 3=Indian/ Eurasian / Others) Housing type (1=HDB 1, 2, 3 room, 2=HDB 4 room, 3=HDB 5 room, 4=Private condominium / Apartment/ Landed property) Education (1= Non-tertiary educated, 2=Tertiary educated) Employment status (1=Not working, 2=Working) Monthly personal income from work (currently working) (1=No income, 2=Below $500, 3=$500-$999, 4=$1000-$1499, 5=$1500-$1999, 6=$2000-$2999, 7=$3000-$3999, 8=$4000-$4999, 9=$5000-$5999, 10=$6000-$6999, 11=$7000-$7999, 12=$8000-$8999, 13=$9000-$9999, 14=$10,000 and above) Value of heritage (1 means ‘Not valuable at all’ and 7 means ‘Very valuable’) National identity (1 means ‘Very weak sense of national identity’ and 7 means ‘Very strong sense of national identity’)

71



Table 28 Regression model predicting national identity for respondents for youngest respondents



(Constant) 0.95 0.49 Gender (2 groups) 0.27 0.11 0.12* Education (2 groups) -0.01 0.12 -0.01 Employment Status (2 groups) -0.17 0.12 -0.08 Monthly Personal Income (Currently working) 0.00 0.04 0.00 Knowledge of symbols Of Singapore 0.01 0.07 0.01 Knowledge of religious/cultural institutions built by immigrants in the colonial period

-0.04 0.04 -0.06

Memories of places of leisure and entertainment 0.05 0.05 0.06 Memories of places where important events occurred

0.00 0.04 0.01

Memories of night time hangouts -0.02 0.04 -0.03 Memories of iconic landmarks -0.01 0.05 -0.01 Physical appeal of colonial architecture 0.03 0.06 0.03 Physical appeal of Singapore citizenship markers

0.05 0.07 0.05

Physical appeal of sites in conservation news -0.02 0.05 -0.02 Physical appeal of historic rail transport infrastructure

-0.04 0.05 -0.05

Perceived importance of symbols of Singapore 0.03 0.07 0.03 Perceived importance of learning journey sites 0.03 0.06 0.04 Perceived importance of sites for law and order 0.01 0.04 0.01 Perceived importance of places of leisure 0.08 0.05 0.11 Perceived importance of early Chinese community

0.03 0.04 0.03


Notes: Overall model N = 322, *p < .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001 Gender (1=Male, 2=Female) Education (1= Non-tertiary educated, 2=Tertiary educated) Employment status (1=Not working, 2=Working) Monthly personal income from work (currently working) (1=No income, 2=Below $500, 3=$500-$999, 4=$1000-$1499, 5=$1500-$1999, 6=$2000-$2999, 7=$3000-$3999, 8=$4000-$4999, 9=$5000-$5999, 10=$6000-$6999, 11=$7000-$7999, 12=$8000-$8999, 13=$9000-$9999, 14=$10,000 and above) Value of heritage (1 means ‘Not valuable at all’ and 7 means ‘Very valuable’) National identity (1 means ‘Very weak sense of national identity’ and 7 means ‘Very strong sense of national identity’)

About IPS Working Paper Series The IPS Working Papers Series is published in-house for early dissemination of works-in-progress. This may be research carried out by IPS researchers, work commissioned by the Institute or work submitted to the Institute for publication. The views expressed in the Working Papers are strictly those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IPS. Comments on the Working Papers are invited. Please direct your comments and queries to the author(s). IPS Working Papers are available from the IPS at $7.00 each (before GST). Postage and handling charges will be added for mail orders. For more information, please visit www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips or contact email: [email protected] or tel: 6516-8388 or fax: 6777-0700.

Institute of Policy Studies Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy National University of Singapore 1C Cluny Road House 5 Singapore 259599 Tel: (65) 6516 8388 Fax: (65) 6777 0700 Web: www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips Registration Number: 200604346E

survey on the perceptions of singapore’s · seah chia shih paveena and wong kwang lin survey on...

Documents