Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.

689–706, 2002
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/02/$22.00
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
PII: S0160-7383(01)00086-X

CONTRASTING STRATEGIES
Tourism in Denmark and Singapore
Can-Seng Ooi
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Abstract: This paper analyzes and compares the tourism strategies of Copenhagen and
Singapore and examines how Wonderful Copenhagen and Singapore Tourism Board man-
age their tourism industries and balance the different interests of locals and tourists. It dis-
cusses their respective tourism strategies and how they are implemented in each country.
The paper shows that these national bodies receive different degrees of societal and insti-
tutional support for their programs and concludes that the local political environment affects
the destination’s tourism promotion authorities in terms of strategies, manner of operation,
and extent of influence exercised on the local culture-scape. Keywords: Copenhagen, dialo-
gism, impact of tourism, politics, Singapore.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Résumé: Stratégies contrastées: le tourisme au Danemark et à Singapour. Cet article analyse

les stratégies pour le tourisme à Copenhague et à Singapour en étudiant comment l’Office
du Tourisme de Copenhague et le Conseil du Tourisme de Singapour gèrent l’industrie
touristique et maintiennent l’équilibre entre les différents intérêts des habitants et des tour-
istes. On discute des stratégies des deux conseils et de comment ces stratégies sont mises en
œuvre dans les deux pays. L’article montre que ces deux conseils reçoivent des niveaux de
soutien social et institutionnel différents et conclut que le milieu politique local a un effet
sur l’administration de la promotion du tourisme d’une destination quant aux stratégies,
aux opérations et à l’étendue d’influence sur la vie culturelle locale. Mots-clés: Copenhague,
dialogue, impact du tourisme, politique, Singapour.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
In cultural tourism, local food, traditions, crafts, performances, and
historical sights are packaged into products. However, some
researchers are concerned that local cultures are being changed when
transformed into tourist-friendly goods (Cohen 1988; Dann 1999; Mac-
Cannell 1976:91–107; Oakes 1993; Ooi 2001b:180–208; Picard 1995;
Watson and Kopachevsky 1994). For instance, Boissevain’s study of
tourism in Malta shows that the colorful religious celebrations by Mal-

Can-Seng Ooi is Visiting Associate Professor in Copenhagen Business School (Department

of International Economics and Management, Howitzvej 60, DK 2000 Frederiksberg,
Denmark. Email <co.int@cbs.dk>). His book, Cultural Tourism: and Tourism Cultures, examines
various cultural products and the role of cultural mediators. His research interests also
include political economy, Southeast Asian geopolitics, and cross-cultural organizational
management. He has worked in universities and research institutes in Denmark, United
Kingdom, and Singapore.

689
690 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

tese villagers have been transformed in part because of their popularity

with tourists. These events have now become less religious, less con-
cerned with the transcendental, more economically driven, and more
focused on pleasing spectators (Boissevain 1996:116).
Other studies have shown that over time, seemingly negative cultural
effects of tourism can be neutralized by the host society (Boissevain
1996; Erb 2000; Martinez 1996; Picard 1995). Cohen observes that “it
is possible for any new-fangled gimmick, which at one point appeared
to be nothing but a staged ‘tourist trap’, to become over time, and
under appropriate conditions, widely recognized as an ‘authentic’
manifestation of local culture” (1988:380). The case of Las Vegas turn-
ing into a popular gambling destination is an illustration; what is
deemed negative at first may turn out otherwise in the long run
(Gottdiener, Collins and Dickens 1999; Hannigan 1998).
This paper considers particular relationships between culture and
tourism. While the industry impacts local society, its consequences can
be managed and engineered by promotion authorities. The paper ana-
lyzes general strategies, especially how Wonderful Copenhagen
(WoCo) and Singapore Tourism Board (STB)—the respective tourism
authorities—strive to promote their destinations and manage the local
cultural consequences. The paper asks two main questions: what WoCo
and STB’s tourism strategies are, and how they are implemented. More
specific questions follow, such as how these two authorities define the
balance between tourism and local societal interests; how they mediate
between their tourism industries and local societies; and to what extent
they commercialize and modify local cultures for tourism. The two
management approaches clearly reflect the political practices and
values embedded in their respective societies. Besides articulating their
governmental views on engineering of local cultures, their contrasting
strategies highlight the diverse institutional social engineering and
public policy frameworks in these societies. Consequently, as the paper
shows, local political contexts are important specifically at the govern-
mental and institutional level.

TOURISM AND LOCAL CULTURES

There are many economic and societal benefits to be gained from
tourism. For instance, it can rejuvenate a physical area, help improve
a destination’s infrastructure and environmental quality, and be a rev-
enue generator and employment provider (Roche 1992). Without
commercial tourism, historically significant but derelict buildings,
existing but vanishing craft expertise, and increasingly esoteric tra-
ditional performances might disappear for lack of financial support.
These cultural forms may die out completely, but tourism gives them
reasons to remain relevant and vibrant. Nonetheless, many problems
also arise from this expanding industry.
Besides the noted transformation of cultures, locals and tourists may
also disagree on how to interpret local cultures (Prentice 1993; Teo
and Yeoh 1997). Tourists can belittle a cultural object that is locally
significant and well-regarded. For example, Teo and Yeoh document
 CAN-SENG OOI 691

that locals and tourists differ in this symbolic interpretations of Haw

Par Villa, a Chinese mythological theme park in Singapore (1997).
Haw Par Villa was once a popular local haunt, but extensive conversion
(from a garden of Chinese mythological statues into a theme park),
destroyed the strong local affinity. By comparing local and tourist per-
ceptions, Teo and Yeoh warn against “insensitive commodification”
(1997:210).
Desiring both to benefit from tourism and to minimally disrupt and
transform local cultures, many researchers recommend a balance
between cultural preservation and commercial interests (Chang 1997a,
1997b; Garrod and Fyall 2000; Teo and Yeoh 1997; van der Borg, Costa
and Gotti 1996). For example, Newby defines conceptual relationships
between heritage and tourism (1994:208–215), as a continuum along
three principal foci: coexistence, exploitation, and imaginative recon-
struction. Tourism and heritage coexist when the former does not
dominate the local economy. The relationship becomes exploitative
when cultural heritage becomes the basis for generating a cash flow.
Imaginative reconstruction allows preservation without being swal-
lowed by commercialism. This balanced and desired strategy ensures
that the heritage remains “alive”, but the separation among coexist-
ence, exploitation, and creative redevelopment is unclear and subject
to disagreement. What are the specific criteria to be used to ascertain
that a cultural product is imaginatively reconstructed and is not
exploiting the local culture? Who should define these criteria? To what
extent is commercialization and eventual modification of local cultures
acceptable? Furthermore, Philo and Kearns observe that the pro-
motion of a destination is also “a subtle form of socialization designed
to convince local people, many of whom will be disadvantaged and
potentially disaffected, that they are important cogs in a successful
community and that all sorts of ‘good things’ are really being done
on their behalf” (1993:3). So, to what extent should local society be
convinced and changed so as to cater to tourism?
These questions are central in the role of official tourism authorities,
who have to promote the industry to both tourists and locals, by
attracting foreign exchange and convincing locals that hosting paying
guests in their community is advantageous. In the cases of Copenhagen
and Singapore, WoCo and STB use different strategies in mediating
between the industry and local society. To answer why these authorities
choose their selected strategies, this paper will show that their manage-
ment styles reflect their views on business–culture relationships, and
their strategic actions and practices are embedded in the social and
political circumstances of their local societies.

Study Methods
Theoretically, a comparison of two viewpoints usually adopts a “con-
trol through common features” or “most similar systems” approach to
minimize variables (Pearce 1993:22). By establishing the common
bases, the development of theory is stimulated when differences are
located, as empirical fields are specifically bounded by their own insti-
692 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

tutions, economic and social structure, and culture (Baszanger and

Dodier 1997:16–18; Pearce 1993:22). The latter author points out that
comparative research faces three general interrelated issues. First, a
comparison is only sensible if it is based on clearly understood prob-
lems. Second, there must be conceptual equivalence. Third, the studies
must pay attention to contextual factors. Pearce offers a framework to
conceptually structure the comparative research, which this study uses
as a guide.
In terms of the first criterion of a clearly defined problem, this paper
focuses on the role of the national tourism promotion authorities of
Copenhagen and Singapore, their strategies and how they are
implemented. Such exploration provides the base issues to compare
the two destinations and to define the scope of the investigation.
By utilizing conceptual equivalence, (the second condition in Pear-
ce’s comparative framework), the paper employs a dialogic perspective
to draw out the bases’ contextual factors. This treatment originates in
the work of theorist Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986), whose works on liter-
ary texts have been appropriated into the social sciences (Bell and
Gardiner 1998; Ooi 2001b; van Loon 1997). The dialogic perspective
accentuates social multiplicity and dynamic processes. It offers a set of
concepts and vocabulary to present social phenomena in a dynamic
and yet systematic manner, with the emphasis on social multiplicity
and interplay.
Specifically for this paper, to accentuate multiplicity, a number of
dialogic concepts—namely, heteroglossia, polyphony and carniva-
lesque—are assumed. Heteroglossia (Bakhtin 1981:325–326; Holquist
1981:428; Vice 1997:18–44) points to the multiple contexts in under-
standing tourism and its impact on local cultures and highlights at
least two different social frames. Tourism is primarily perceived as an
economic leisure industry. Culture, on the other hand, is supposedly
founded on the history and everyday life of local society. As a result,
the manifestations of the two are conceived to have originated from
different economic and social motivations. From a dialogic perspective,
the touristification of cultures arises from the meetings of, and clashes
between, the social contexts of tourism and host cultures. Both WoCo
and STB are managing the interface of these different spheres of
social activities.
Polyphony (Bakhtin 1981:331–336; Bakhtin 1986:112–113; Vice
1997:112–148) highlights multiple voices but points to the ubiquitous
and mediating mission of the tourism authorities. This paper locates
their ubiquitous mediating action in their respective destinations.
Operators, tourists, and local residents contribute to, and express
themselves in, the profile of each destination, but the authorities offer
the overall strategy to enhance broad marketability (Ooi 2001b:145–
179). WoCo and STB also present ways of appreciating and under-
standing the destination for tourists, and ways for locals to behave and
imagine themselves with regards to foreigners. Their mediating pres-
ence is centered on bringing the different interests of tourism and
local society together.
The concept of the carnivalesque (Bakhtin 1984; Stallybrass and
 CAN-SENG OOI 693

White 1986) points to multiple cultures and spheres of activities that

the authorities could not totally manage, suppress, or control. For
instance, despite the glossy images they presented of staying in sanit-
ized hotels and visiting properly constructed attractions, tourists can
still gaze at and experience the seedier aspects of a destination. How-
ever, the manner in which selected attractions are accentuated (or
suppressed) informs the choices authorities make in their strategies.
Moreover, their methods of defining and acting on their options betray
their views of how tourism and local society should relate to each other,
and also imply the social and political conditions that these authorities
are working within.
Together, heteroglossia points to the clash of commercial and cul-
tural contexts in tourism; polyphony accentuates the ubiquitous and
mediating voice of the authorities in managing the clashes of tourism
and local cultural contexts; and the carnivalesque alludes to spheres
of activities beyond the control of the authorities, although these activi-
ties and sights may be suppressed or ignored by them. Interrogating
the coerciveness behind the mediating voice of authorities highlights
their ideological views and the political contexts within which they
function. Although this framework is tacit (and conspicuously silent),
it offers the conceptual structure for analyzing the strategies of WoCo
and STB, and forms a basis for their comparisons.
This study will emphasize the political contextual factors in order to
highlight the contrasts between tourism strategies in the two desti-
nations. The common starting points for comparing Copenhagen and
Singapore are their tourism industries, the cities being destinations,
and the focus on the agencies. WoCo and STB have to deal with similar
issues of how local cultures should cater to the needs and desires of
tourists and to what extent should a society be touristified. However,
because these destinations have quite different political environments,
the authorities employ different strategies. Their management style
also reveals their views on the business–culture relationship.
Clearly defined problems, conceptual equivalence, and drawing out
contextual factors are the three elements which form this paper’s com-
parative framework. To apply the latter, data were collected in both
destinations in similar manners. The researcher has immersed himself
into the empirical fields since 1996 and his understanding is developed
and grounded on his data, experiences, and analyses (Ooi 2001b:64–
87). A number of interviews were conducted with representatives in the
respective official tourism promotion agencies (WoCo, STB, Danish
Tourism Board, and the Danish Ministry of Industry and Business) and
with tour operators, tourist guide publishers, and attraction managers.
The quotations in this paper come from personally conducted in-depth
face-to-face responses. In addition, other data included those from
participant observervation (the researcher functioning as a tourist to
witness happenings at the destinations). Besides official documents,
promotion and marketing materials for tourists were also collected.
694 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

Copenhagen and the Danish Tourism Authorities

The Danish Tourist Board (DTB) is the national tourism authority

in Denmark. WoCo, the official congress and tourist organization for
the Greater Copenhagen Area, believes that “by promoting Greater
Copenhagen as a major city destination, attractive and competitive for
both holiday and business tourism, the organization is instrumental in
generating revenue and employment in the region” (W.C. 1999:2).
WoCo and the DTB do not license any tourism businesses, but the
latter controls the information centers throughout Denmark and pro-
motes the country as a destination around the world. WoCo concen-
trates on the development and the optimization of tourism products,
marketing, and services in the capital city (Lousdal and Sihm 1997:62–
68). As part of providing the infrastructure in Copenhagen it is the
coordinator of five networks or platforms for industry players to meet
and collaborate. In one network, “Meetingplace Wonderful Copen-
hagen”, the members are providers of conference and meeting services
in the city. The aim is to maintain and improve the quality and develop-
ment of meeting, incentive, congress and exhibition products. “Copen-
hagen Card” is another network built around a tourism product. With
this card, tourists have free or discounted access to a number of sights,
and cardholders can ride free on local buses and trains. Expectedly,
the “Copenhagen Card” network consists of museums, attractions, pub-
lic transport authorities, and shops.
WoCo and DTB do not offer direct support to private tourism com-
panies through promotional materials or product development. The
authorities attempt to maintain a clear demarcation between private
businesses and public interests. They also perceive cultural and econ-
omic spheres of activities as separate but try to bring them together.
With reference to the arts and culture, the country generally holds the
view that any form of cultural expression needs public support
(Koefoed 1995:133–140). In this, the government bears the financial
responsibility, while the contents of the cultural activities rest with the
artists and the professionals (Koefoed 1995:136). Similarly in tourism,
the public–private and culture–business divides are maintained by
these authorities in Copenhagen, although tourism and local interests
do meet and clash. Consequently, WoCo and the DTB attempt to inter-
est tourists in what locals decide and want themselves, a style of
mediation illustrated by how the capital city is packaged as “Wonder-
ful Copenhagen”.
“Wonderful Copenhagen” has been in use since the 50s. W.C. sees a
close natural relationship between the destination brand—“Wonderful
Copenhagen”—and its product. The popular brand-images are of
classical and historical Copenhagen, including the old city center, the
Little Mermaid, Amalienborg (the Queen’s residence), writer Hans
Christian Andersen, and the Tivoli Gardens. There are concerns
among various private tourism agencies in Copenhagen about the
officially promoted identity. The editor of Copenhagen Expozed (an
Internet information guide) lamented that
 CAN-SENG OOI 695

[“Wonderful Copenhagen”] is very, very old fashioned. This is giving

the wrong impression of Copenhagen. It’s not like that anymore ….
They have to show that Copenhagen is a lively city, one that is young
at heart and experimental. Copenhagen and the Danish people
experiment with music and art, and all the cultural, creative things.
And the officials are hiding that away, and pretending that it’s wonder-
ful Copenhagen (interview in 1988).
Besides being perceived as “old fashioned”, “Wonderful Copenhagen”
does not reflect the full carnivalesque character of the city. Copen-
hagen This Week, the only free monthly tourist guide booklet, has an
“After Dark” section at the back. This advertising section features
escort services, sex shops, and striptease clubs. Some tourists and locals
are offended by this section. Its publisher explained why the section
is still kept:
We have one complaint [of Copenhagen This Week], which is about the
[“After Dark”] back pages. … But everyone knows that [the sex busi-
ness] is here, and it is part of Copenhagen. And it’s not illegal. It is
legal business. So, that’s why we print this (interview in 1998).
Sexually titillating postcards and sex shops are readily found around
Copenhagen. The Economist (1998) mentioned that the city is one of
the biggest centers for pornography production in Europe. Neverthe-
less, sex is not an image normally associated with the official identity
“Wonderful Copenhagen”. By quietly ignoring the seedier aspects of
the city, WoCo attempts to present the destination by selectively narrat-
ing and directing attention towards certain sights. On the other hand,
WoCo has not insisted that Copenhagen This Week removes its “After
Dark” section despite the booklet’s being promoted as the official
information guide. Although officially sanctioned, the booklet is inde-
pendently run.
While WoCo generally lets private businesses decide on their own
products, it also acknowledges that “Wonderful Copenhagen” is per-
ceived as “old fashioned”. WoCo’s Director of Development explained
how his organization intends to change that perception:
We have a strong image on the Little Mermaid, Tivoli and Hans Chris-
tian Andersen, things like that. And it is fine, it is a positive image
but also, it is old fashioned. We would like to reposition ourselves with
new elements, not to throw away the Little Mermaid, not at all. We
could put new elements into our image. … We have very good
museums of modern art, for instance (interview in 1999).
This approach is also reflected in another project, which involves
WoCo. Greater Copenhagen and Scania, the southern-most county of
Sweden, are cooperating to form the Øresund Region. A bridge and
a tunnel opened in July 2000, to join these two areas across the
Øresund Sound, with “The Human Capital” as the identity branding
for this region. The approach to developing this brand is similar to that
of developing “Wonderful Copenhagen”, that is, associate appealing
products and images over time into it.
In sum, the Danish tourism authorities consider the elements cur-
rently constituting “Wonderful Copenhagen” and the “Human Capital”
696 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

to be evolving with new elements emerging. The authorities do not

forcefully impose or narrate how these identities should be con-
structed. As a result, WoCo <http://www.woco.dk> offers a collage of
traditional and modern images of Copenhagen, while still profiling
the destination as “Wonderful Copenhagen”. WoCo and other Danish
promotion authorities respect the differences in interests among tour-
ism, local cultural institutions, and local society. Although the private
business sector has voiced its dissatisfaction with the romantic “Won-
derful Copenhagen” message, in keeping with the democratic ideal of
Denmark, the agency lets the image evolve. In this non-forceful and
almost unobtrusive manner, WoCo attempts to balance the different
interests of commercial tourism and local society; it looks out for suit-
able sights and activities that have evolved and emerged in the society,
and includes them as elements of “Wonderful Copenhagen”. The
agency mediates in the industry by encouraging tourism businesses to
offer better products, while building an infrastructure conducive for
development of the industry.

Singapore and its Tourism Board

Singapore Tourism Board is the official agency in the city-state. The
original Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (STPB) was renamed in
December 1997. Both names are used in this paper to reflect the tem-
poral contexts. STB works closely with other state agencies, such as the
National Heritage Board, Urban Redevelopment Authority, and the
National Art Council to make Singapore a more interesting place. It
also licenses tour guides and travel agencies (STB 1998b). It subsidizes
the printing of promotional materials by travel agents, who in turn
support the marketing and product policies of the agency. It also
actively helps to develop tourism products for inbound travel agents.
While the Danish authorities take the role of facilitator among indus-
try players, STB moves further and takes initiatives. It is involved in
organizing activities, such as the annual Singapore River Buskers Festi-
val, Great Singapore Sale, Singapore Food Festival, and festival street
light-ups. It has also recommended and initiated the conservation of
Chinatown, Little India, and other heritage places (Chang 1997b;
Leong 1997). It has also produced the master plan for three new
national museums: the Singapore Art Museum, the Asian Civilizations
Museum, and the Singapore History Museum (STPB and the Ministry
of Information and the Arts 1995; Ooi 2001a). In other words, STB
both offers the infrastructure to develop Singapore into a tourism city,
and is involved in shaping the culture-scape in the destination. It
attempts to balance different interests of commercial tourism and local
society by merging their economic and cultural contexts; tourism and
local cultural life are shown to share complementary interests and
motivations. This strategy is seen in the promotion of the desti-
nation branding.
A new destination identity, “New Asia—Singapore”, was launched in
January 1996 by the STPB. In its press release, it proclaimed that the
positioning “better captures the essence of today’s Singapore”. The
 CAN-SENG OOI 697

previous 11-year-old “Surprising Singapore” position is considered no

longer adequate to communicate “the breadth of the mature Singa-
pore tourism product, or the vision of Singapore tourism” (STPB
1996:1). The agency’s Director of Destination Marketing Division
explained:
We needed to find a branding that better reflects the new Singapore.
We also need the new branding to reflect the new role of the Singa-
pore Tourist Promotion Board, and the fact that we are now not just
a destination but we are also a jumping off point to a culturally very
exciting, very rich area of the world, plus an important tourism busi-
ness hub. We also wanted something that would reflect that Asia is
coming of age, we are listening to people talking about the [21st]
century being that of the Asia Pacific. So, we wanted to include
elements of these sentiments in the market place, into our branding.
And it also gives us an opportunity to refresh the way we present our-
selves in our brochures, posters and other collateral. As a result of
these, we said we need a new branding (interview in 1998).
The new positioning re-packages and re-invents Singapore as a desti-
nation, with new interests, new products, and new tourism possibilities.
A Destination Marketing Division brief expresses the new destination
identity as follows:
“New Asia—Singapore” expresses the essence of today’s Singapore: a
vibrant, multicultural, sophisticated city-state where tradition and
modernity, East and West meet in harmony; a place where one can
see and feel the energy that makes New Asia—Singapore the exemplar
of the dynamism of the South-East Asia region (STPB 1997:1).
Since 1964, according to Chang (1997a), Singapore’s positioning as a
destination changed three times. In the 60s and 70s, it was promoted
as “Instant Asia”, where one could find an array of Asian cultures,
peoples, festivals, and cuisine conveniently concentrated in a single
destination. In the 80s, “Surprising Singapore” placed contrasting
images of modernity and Asian exoticism together (Chang 1997a:548–
555; Leong 1997). In the latest destination identity, the focus subtly
shifts from promised pockets of mutually exclusive, diverse, and
distinct ethnic cultures in modern Singapore, to the fusion of ethnic
cultures and modern development. Metaphorically, while “Surprising
Singapore” described a “salad mix” of various ethnic cultures in a mod-
ern environment, “New Asia—Singapore” paints the country as a “melt-
ing pot” of Eastern and Western cultures. This also presents Singapore
as having a unique, constantly evolving culture, in contrast to the sup-
posedly more exotic and pristine destinations of Thailand, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Vietnam, and others in the Southeast Asian region.
In clarifying the new official concept, a brief states that “New Asia”
can be found in Singaporean lifestyle, food, music and various attrac-
tions (STPB 1997). This again points out that Singaporeans life include
both a modern environment and some old traditions. Practices such
as hanging clothes to dry on bamboo poles in high-rise buildings and
places like Suntec City, with its modern buildings organized according
to the ancient Chinese belief of geomancy, are “New Asia” examples.
698 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

STB has also developed a number of “New Asia—Singapore” tour

products since 1996 and launched the Tourism Development Assist-
ance Scheme in 1998. The government, through STB, has allocated
$50 million [S$80 million] to be used over ten years for this scheme.
More money will be offered if necessary (The Straits Times 1998c).
Among other things, products consistent with the new theme would
be developed.
With the resources available, STB’s presence is felt not just in the
tourism industry but also in the wider local society. For instance, STB,
with the cooperation of other state-related agencies and the mass
media, has made “New Asia—Singapore” a cultural category and reality
in Singapore. The Straits Times (1997a), Singapore’s only national
English broadsheet daily belonging to Singapore’s only press holding
company, compared “New Asia cuisine” to fusion cuisine invented in
California in the mid-80s. This includes dishes influenced by kitchens
of different cultures. In another issue, The Straits Times searched for
“Singapore’s original ‘food people’, who may have been the first to
invent fusion fare” (1998b). Thus, the brand becomes a cultural cate-
gory, identifies numerous local practices as “New Asia”, a cultural cate-
gory (The Straits Times admitted) “coined here about 18 months ago”
(1997a). Therefore, the brand has apparently led to the rediscovery
of culture or “invention of tradition” (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983).
The apparent acceptance of STB’s strategy is also reflected in the
responses from the interviews collected for this study. Except for one,
private tourism operators interviewed would not voice any criticisms
against STB or its strategies. This situation suggests their apparent
whole-hearted support for the board, or their unwillingness to make
known their disagreements during the interviews. It was reported in
The Straits Times that the STPB is “pushing agents to update the stories
they tell visitors and pack in more information on new developments”
(1997b). In the same report, Vice-President (inbound) of the Singa-
pore National Association of Travel Agents commended STB’s move
as “bold, daring, and good”. She added that “[s]omething needs to be
done to jolt the tour operators for everybody’s good”.
Private tourism operators in Singapore have come to receive and
rely on financial support and good promotional advice from STB. Insti-
tutionally, besides licensing tourism activities in Singapore, it has made
itself central in the industry by taking initiatives and mobilizing tourism
places, so that private businesses have become relatively dependent on
it. For instance, it has plans to make the Singapore River into a more
significant attraction (The Straits Times 2001b). It called for new trans-
port services along the river to encourage tourists and locals to use it
for daily travel. The Chairman of the Singapore River Business Associ-
ation, when asked what could be done to breathe life into the river,
said:

The Singapore Tourism Board is looking at introducing more varieties

of river transport, such as motorboats, by the end of the year. If the
plan is agreed, we should be able to change the way people use the
river (The Straits Times 2001a).
 CAN-SENG OOI 699

The private sector’s dependency on STB reflects the government’s con-

trol over commercial activities in the city-state. Tourism businesses
must cooperate with and depend on the board’s support of their activi-
ties, to have access to the previously mentioned resources.
Like “Wonderful Copenhagen”, “New Asia—Singapore” does not
reflect the full carnivalesque character of the destination. For Singa-
pore, too, has an unofficial destination identity, “Fine City—Singa-
pore”. The pun describes a fine (pleasant) city, and is also a cheeky
reference to the fines (penalties) meted out on people caught for
“uncivil” behavior, ranging from jaywalking to not flushing public
toilets after use. This slogan pokes fun at the many regulations in the
nation-state. “Fine City—Singapore” souvenir T-shirts and refrigerator
magnets are commonly found. Although it deviates from “New Asia—
Singapore”, the authorities ignore it.
However, STB may push for locally unpopular tourism cultural pro-
ducts. For example, in September 1998, the board initiated the $60
million plan to revitalize Chinatown over three to five years (STB
1998a; The Straits Times 1999). The Urban Redevelopment Authority
and the board wanted to ensure that a “‘fine balance’ is maintained
between preserving the old and keeping up with the demands of the
present” (The Straits Times 1998a). The revitalization project intends to
bring back the old spirit of Chinatown, which, after years of modern
development, has been sanitized. The plans outline “details to carve
Chinatown into three sectors, create theme gardens and streets, and
mimic a street bazaar, among other things” (The Straits Times 1999).
STB’s plans sparked heated debates between Singaporeans and the
authorities, with the-then Minister for Information and the Arts
acknowledging the disagreements between the board and the public
(The Straits Times 1999). After some consultation with interested par-
ties, the main plans remain and will be implemented.
On the other hand, Singaporeans welcome some of STB’s projects.
For example, every year since the early 80s, the tourism authorities
organize street light-ups and activities in Chinatown during Chinese
New Year, in Little India during Deepavali (the Hindu festival of lights),
along Orchard Road during Christmas and in Geylang Serai during
Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji (Muslim festivals). These light-ups
generate atmospheres of excitement, and at the same time, celebrate
ethnic pride according to the official Singaporean Chinese, Malay,
Indian, and Others ethnic mix model (Benjamin 1976; Chang 1997b;
Leong 1997; Siddique 1990). These lively and colorful activities make
Singapore an “eventful” city, and they are aggressively promoted to
tourists. Although these events are state-organized and staged through
STB, they have become popular with locals.
Unlike WoCo and DTB, tourism and local cultures are not clearly
separated by STB. Arguing that tourism improves the quality of life of
Singaporeans (National Tourism Plan Committees 1996), it
implements plans like other top-down social engineering programs in
the country, an approach that the Danish authorities shy away from.
STB attempts to advance tourism and local cultural interests towards
700 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

harmony and balance by promoting existing aspects of local society to

tourists, and also by engineering local society.

Local Politics and Tourism Strategies

WoCo and STB see the relationship between culture and tourism
differently. This finding is reflected in how they package and maintain
their destination identities. Table 1 summarizes the comparisons
between the tourism authorities in Copenhagen and Singapore. WoCo,
together with the DTB and Ministry of Business and Industry, use an
infrastructure-provider approach in managing their industry. Although
WoCo separates the spheres of activities in tourism and local cultures,
it lets businesses package their own products, and at the same time
encourages cultural institutions to welcome tourists. In comparing the
Danish and Singaporean approaches and the contrasting political
environments embedded in their tourism strategies, the Singaporean
political environment will be used against the less intrusive approach
of the Danes.
First, STB attempts to ignore the contextual boundaries of tourism

Table 1. Different Approaches of the Danish and Singaporean Tourism Authorities

Copenhagen: WoCo and Singapore: STB

DTB

Cooperation with Industry Build cooperation with Cooperates with other state
other business agencies; agencies in their social
engineering programs;
WoCo coordinates five Cooperates with and offers
tourism-related business policy support and financial
networks; resources to tourism
businesses, such as retailers,
attraction operators, and
travel agencies;
DTB licenses tourist License attraction
information centers around operators, travel agencies,
Denmark; and guides in Singapore;
Role of Tourism Provide infrastructure for Provides infrastructure for
Authorities tourism businesses; tourism businesses;
Initiates, manages, and
provides financial and
institutional support for
tourism activities;
Engages in state social
engineering programs;
Public–Private Separation Maintain separation Merges private sector
between public and private interests with public social
sectors; interests;
Business and Culture Advocates that business Advocates that business and
Relations influences on culture culture complement each
should be balanced by other.
letting these two spheres of
activities decide for
themselves.
 CAN-SENG OOI 701

and local cultural activities. By doing so, it is suggesting that tourists

and locals can speak the same language and share common interests.
The economic context can contribute to the making of local cultural
life. Apparently, STB gives primacy to economic interests over cultural
interests, as in other spheres of social life in Singapore (Clammer 1985;
Haley and Low 1998; Kwok 1999; Leong 1997).
Second, economic and institutional resources are mobilized to achi-
eve and maintain the goals and visions of STB. Generally, the govern-
ment sets up policies, institutions, and mechanisms that encourage
private businesses, unions, and other relevant partners to follow or
obey official orders, visions, and strategies (Chan 1975; Deyo 1981;
Haley and Low 1998; Heyzer 1983). In the case of tourism, private
businesses are encouraged to produce “New Asia” products through
incentive schemes. These operators would find it beneficial, or even
necessary, to tap into the resources made available to them by the
government (such as Tourism Development Assistance Scheme). As
alluded to earlier, this governmental approach has partly resulted in
private businesses becoming dependent on the leadership and support
from the authorities. In contrast, the Danish tourism authorities do
not have the resources or the forceful institutional mechanisms to
ensure that private tourism businesses follow their leadership. They,
in effect, keep the private and public sector interests separate.
Third, although STB does not have an explicit social engineering
agenda, it works closely with other state institutions (such as the local
mass media, Urban Redevelopment Authority, the National Heritage
Board, the National Art Council and the police) to allow or promote
certain tourism activities. The state agencies are difficult to separate
(Leong 1997; Schein 1996). STB’s strategies are achieved when differ-
ent state agencies and departments coordinate their activities and help
realize their agreed-to visions. In contrast, for instance, the Danish
Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Industry and Business have differ-
ent agendas and goals, and they do not have a comprehensive joint
platform for the industry.
Fourth, Singapore is governed by a soft authoritarian regime (Chua
1995; Ooi 1998), having evolved into a one-dominant-party political
system. The ruling People’s Action Party has been in power since 1959.
State policies and social engineering programs, popular or unpopular,
can be implemented quickly because of the overwhelming majority of
the ruling party in Parliament (Ooi 1998). Over the years, among many
other things, the labor unions were brought under control by the
government (Heyzer 1983), Singaporeans are encouraged to have
more children if they are better educated (Quah 1990), and religious
tolerance and mutual respect are sanctioned by law (Tong 1992). As
discussed earlier, with the help of the mass media, “New Asia—Singa-
pore” has become a subtle form of engineering an image of the coun-
try for the citizens themselves.
Finally, closely related to earlier points, under the strong and force-
ful leadership of the ruling party, Singapore has evolved into a prag-
matic society (Chua 1995:68–70). People have come to accept a strong
state role in promoting profit-driven culture, art, environmentalism,
702 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

and public programs (Chua 1995). The compartmentalization of eco-

nomics from other aspects of social and cultural life is blurred. This
intermingling is supposedly part of the “New Asia” approach. Singa-
pore embraces foreign influences, adopts new technologies, seizes
international business opportunities, and appropriates foreign cul-
tures. While the state attempts to control “undesirable” foreign influ-
ences, this city-state constantly embraces the world economically. Its
open trade policies often entail accepting many influences from the
world. As a result the touristification of society is not necessarily an
issue for many. For STB has the largely uncontested hegemony to rede-
fine and blend tourism and local societal interests.
These points contrast with Danish society. For the last many parlia-
mentary sessions, its government has had a narrow or no majority in
the House. Proposals for almost any new policy and legislation face
public criticisms from opposition and different interest groups. Dis-
senting views are freely expressed in the mass media. Since the state
maintains a clear separation between private and public sectors, the
government would offer only the infrastructure necessary to cultivate
business. While WoCo attempts to stimulate the industry, it does not
have the institutional muscles to dictate to the various private tourism
businesses, nor does it have the financial resources to encourage these
operations to adopt their comprehensive plans, even if they had them.

CONCLUSION
As a starting point, this paper posed two questions: What WoCo and
STB’s strategies are and how they implement them. The dialogic per-
spective is used as the conceptual framework in this paper. With this
framework, whose presence is dominant but unspoken, the discussions
have highlighted the meetings and clashes of tourism and local cultural
contexts. These contexts entail different agendas and interests, which
the tourism promotion authorities of Copenhagen and Singapore try
to manage and balance. The voice of the promotion authorities is rela-
tively loud in Singapore; STB’s plans are supported by forceful policies
and valuable resources. That is not the case in Copenhagen. This con-
trast reveals the diverse political circumstances within which the tour-
ism promotion authorities are functioning. Their strengths, as industry
leaders, are at least partly situated in the differing power they have
and institutional support they can garner.
Therefore, the balancing of tourism and local cultural interests by
promotion authorities has a political dimension, through which stra-
tegies are made and locally implemented. Thus, the extent to which
tourism-driven cultural changes can be brought about by these auth-
orities depends partly on the political ideology and institutional
machinery in each destination. The examples of Copenhagen and Sin-
gapore illustrate the different extents and ways authorities can “tour-
istify” their own local societies. As shown in Singapore, in the appropri-
ate political environment, commercial interests can be forcefully and
deliberately integrated into local cultures by the authorities.왎
 CAN-SENG OOI 703

Acknowledgements—The author would like to thank the respondents for their

cooperation, and Majken Schultz, Chris Rojek, Mikael Sandgren, Kristian Kreiner,
Patricia Plackett, and Dominique Bouchet for their insightful and constructive com-
ments during the course of the study. This paper is derived from the author’s Ph.D.
research, which was supported by an international scholarship awarded by Copenhagen
Business School.

REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M.
1981 The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1984 Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Baszanger, I., and N. Dodier
1997 Ethnography: Relating the Part to the Whole. In Qualitative Research:
Theory, Method and Practice, D. Silverman, ed., pp. 8–23. London: Sage.
Bell M. and M. Gardiner eds.
1998 Bakhtin and the Human Sciences London: Sage.
Benjamin, G.
1976 The Cultural Logic of Singapore’s “Multi-Culturalism”. In Understanding
Singapore Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp. 107–124. Singapore:
Times Academic Press.
Boissevain, J.
1996 Ritual, Tourism and Cultural Commoditization in Malta: Culture by the
Pound? In The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, T. Selwyn,
ed., pp. 105–120. Chichester: Wiley.
Chan, H.
1975 Politics in an Administrative State: Where Has the Politics Gone? In
Understanding Singapore Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp. 294–
306. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Chang, T.
1997a From “Instant Asia” to “Multi-Faceted Jewel”: Urban Imaging Strategies
and Tourism Development in Singapore. Urban Geography 18:pp. 542–562.
1997b Heritage as a Tourism Commodity: Traversing the Tourist–Local Divide.
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 18:46–68.
Chua, B.
1995 Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Rout-
ledge.
Clammer, J.
1985 Culture, Values and Modernization in Singapore: An Overview. In Under-
standing Singapore Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp. 502–512.
Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Cohen, E.
1988 Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 15:371–386.
Dana, L.
1999 The Social Cost of Tourism. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis-
tration Quarterly 40:60–63.
Deyo, F.
1981 Creating Industrial Community: Towards a Corporate Paternalist Society.
In Understanding Singapore Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp.
363–373. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Erb, M.
2000 Understanding Tourists: Interpretations from Indonesia. Annals of Tour-
ism Research 27:709–736.
Garrod, B., and A. Fyall
2000 Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27:682–708.
Gottdiener, M., C. Collins, and D. Dickens
1999 Las Vegas: The Social Production of an All-American City. Oxford:
Blackwell.
704 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

Haley, U., and L. Low

1998 Crafted Culture: Governmental Sculpting of Modern Singapore and
Effects on Business Environments. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-
ment 11:530–553.
Hannigan, J.
1998 Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Heyzer, N.
1983 International Production and Social Change: An Analysis of the State,
Employment and Trade Unions in Singapore. In Understanding Singapore
Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp. 374–395. Singapore: Times
Academic Press.
Hobsbawm, E., and T. Ranger
1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holquist, M.
1981 Glossary. In The Dialogic Imagination, M. Bakhtin, ed., pp. 423–434. Aus-
tin: University of Texas Press.
Koefoed, I.
1995 Danish Cultural Policy. In Discover Denmark—on Denmark and the
Danes: Past, Present and Future, pp. 133–140. Copenhagen: The Danish Cul-
tural Institute.
Kwok, K.
1999 The Social Architect: Goh Keng Swee. In Lee’s Lieutenants: Singapore’s
Old Guard, P. Lam and K. Tan, eds., pp. 45–69. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Leong, W.
1997 Commodifying Ethnicity: State and Ethnic Tourism in Singapore. In
Tourism, Ethnicity, and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies, M. Picard and
R. Wood, eds., pp. 71–98. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Lousdal, S., and K. Sihm
1997 Branding the Øresund Region as a Tourist Destination. Copenhagen:
Scandinavian Academy of Management.
MacCannell, D.
1976 The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Macmillan.
Martinez, D.
1996 The Tourist as Deity: Ancient Continuities in Modern Japan. In The
Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism, T. Selwyn, ed., pp. 163–
178. Chichester: Wiley.
National Tourism Plan Committees
1996 Tourism 21: Vision of a Tourism Capital. Singapore: Singapore Tourism
Promotion Board.
Newby, P.
1994 Tourism: Support or Threat to Heritage? In Building a New Heritage:
Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe, G. Ashworth and P. Lark-
ham, eds., pp. 206–228. London: Routledge.
Oakes, T.
1993 The Cultural Space of Modernity: Ethnic Tourism and Place Identity in
China. Society and Space 11:47–66.
Ooi, C.
1998 Singapore. In Political Party Systems and Democratic Development in
East and Southeast Asia, Volume 1: Southeast Asia, W. Sachsenröder and U.
Frings, eds., pp. 343–402. Aldershot: Ashgate.
2001a Dialogic Heritage: Time, Space and Visions of the National Museum of
Singapore. In Interconnected Worlds: Tourism in Southeast Asia, P. Teo, T.
Chang and K. Ho, eds., pp. 176–192. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
2001b Mediated Cultures: Consumption and Production of Copenhagen and
Singapore. Published PhD dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.
Pearce, D.
1993 Comparative Studies in Tourism Research. In Tourism Research: Cri-
tiques and Challenges, D. Pearce and R. Butler, eds., pp. 20–35. London:
Routledge.
Philo, C., and G. Kearns
 CAN-SENG OOI 705

1993 Culture, History, Capital: A Critical Introduction to the Selling of Places.

In Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, G. Kearns
and C. Philo, eds., pp. 1–32. Oxford: Pergamon.
Picard, M.
1995 Cultural Heritage and Tourist Capital: Cultural Tourism in Bali. In Inter-
national Tourism: Identity and Change, M. Lanfant, J. Allcock and E.
Brunner, eds., pp. 44–66. London: Sage.
Prentice, R.
1993 Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London: Routledge.
Quah, S.
1990 The Social Significance of Marriage and Parenthood in Singapore. In
Understanding Singapore Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp. 257–
290. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Roche, M.
1992 Mega-Events and Micro-Modernization: On the Sociology of the New
Urban Tourism. The British Journal of Sociology 43:563–600.
Schein, E.
1996 Strategic Pragmaticism: The Culture of Singapore’s Economic and Devel-
opment Board. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Siddique, S.
1990 The Phenomenology of Ethnicity: A Singapore Case Study. In Under-
standing Singapore Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp. 107–124.
Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Stallybrass, P., and A. White
1986 Bourgeois Hysteria and the Carnivalesque. In The Cultural Studies
Reader, S. During, ed., pp. 284–292. London: Routledge.
STB
1998a New Chinatown to Re-Capture Spirit of the Old. Press Release
(September 25).
1998b Travel Agent Handbook. Singapore: Singapore Tourism Board.
STPB and the Ministry of Information and the Arts
1995 Singapore: Global City for the Arts. Singapore: Singapore Tourist Pro-
motion Board and the Ministry of Information and the Arts.
STPB
1996 STPB Launches New Branding and Destination Marketing Tagline for Sin-
gapore. Press Release (January 4, 1996).
1997 “New Asia–Singapore”: The Concept. Destination Marketing Division Brief
(September 11, 1997).
Teo, P., and B. Yeoh
1997 Remaking Local Heritage for Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
24:192–213.
The Economist
1998 Giving the Customer What He Wants. The Economist (February 14).
The Straits Times
1997a Fusion Cuisine, or Confusion? The Straits Times (August 3).
1997b Stop Selling the Same Old Tours, STPB Tells Operators. The Straits
Times (August 29).
1998a Blooming Changes in Chinatown. The Straits Times (June 3)
1998b End of a Grand Tradition. The Straits Times (May 1).
1998c New $80m Assistance Scheme for Tourist Firms. The Straits Times
(May 4).
1999 Chinatown Furore “Shows Rootedness”. The Straits Times (March 13).
2001a Get Singapore onto Wishlist of Tourists. The Straits Times (March 16).
2001b When the River Comes Alive. The Straits Times (March 16).
Tong, C.
1992 The Rationalization of Religion in Singapore. In Understanding Singa-
pore Society, J. Ong, C. Tong and E. Tan, eds., pp. 198–212. Singapore: Times
Academic Press.
van der Borg, J., P. Costa, and G. Gotti
1996 Tourism in European Heritage Cities. Annals of Tourism Research
23:306–321.
706 CONTRASTING STRATEGIES

van Loon, J.
1997 Chronotopes: of/in the Televisualization of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots.
Theory, Culture and Society 14:89–104.
Vice, S.
1997 Introducing Bakhtin. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Watson, G., and J. Kopachevsky
1994 Interpretations of Tourism as Commodity. Annals of Tourism Research
21:643–660.
W.C.
1999 Annual Report 1998. Copenhagen: Wonderful Copenhagen.

Submitted 28 July 2000. Resubmitted 20 May 2001. Resubmitted 7 June 2001. Accepted
13 June 2001. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Jeremy F. Boissevain