survey on the perceptions of singapore’s · seah chia shih paveena and wong kwang lin survey on...
Post on 27-May-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
natalie.pang@nus.edu.sg
SEAH CHIA SHIH PAVEENA
Senior Research Analyst
IPS Social Lab
Institute of Policy Studies
and
WONG KWANG LIN
Research Analyst
IPS Social Lab
Institute of Policy Studies
wong.kwanglin@nus.edu.sg
August 2019
2
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
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
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
Appendix 3D Factor analysis of perceived importance 66
Appendix 4 Regression models for national identity 69
4
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Awareness Ranking 16 5 5
% aware 83.9 94.3 95.6
Knowledge Ranking 31 28 11
Mean score 3.63 4.25 4.81
Memories Ranking 20 17 10
Mean score 3.80 4.30 4.87
Physical appeal Ranking 47 48 46
Mean score 3.81 3.69 4.15
Importance Ranking 41 43 36
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
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
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
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
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
Awareness Ranking 37 46 50
% aware 45.3 50.9 51.1
Knowledge Ranking 19 40 53
Mean score 3.93 3.98 3.74
Memories Ranking 40 52 53
Mean score 3.16 3.06 3.19
Importance Ranking 29 49 53
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
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
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
Awareness Ranking 26 38 42
% aware 71.4 70.9 69.6
Knowledge Ranking 17 17 38
Mean score 3.97 4.42 4.20
Memories Ranking 29 30 37
Mean score 3.43 4.04 4.01
Physical appeal Ranking 16 12 39
Mean score 4.99 5.10 4.39
Importance Ranking 22 14 45
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
10 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r = 0.29, n = 607, p < .01.
27
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
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
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
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
13 Pearson correlation test showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables, r = 0.36, n = 578, p < .01.
29
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
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
Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients
Variables B Std. Error Beta
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
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
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
Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients
Variables B Std. Error Beta
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
38
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
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.
39
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
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.
40
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
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
41
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
8 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)
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
4.77 1.72 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
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
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
26 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)
3.74 1.85 The Cenotaph 4.27 1.72 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)
4.49 1.84
27 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall
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
30 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
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
38 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
3.53 1.85 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
4.07 1.81 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground
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
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
46 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)
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
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
Table 11: 53 sites ranked by respondents' memories of each site
Rank Aged 18-28 Mean SD Aged 29-48 Mean SD Aged 49 and above Mean SD
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
2 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)
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
5 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)
4.68 1.83 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.18 1.67 Old National Library 5.13 1.74
6 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses
4.57 1.73 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)
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
4.98 1.60 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)
5.01 1.69
9 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)
4.46 1.74 Old National Library 4.90 1.85 Changi Airport Control Tower 5.00 1.80
10 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)
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
13 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
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)
4.17 1.79 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
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
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
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
27 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)
3.45 1.85 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
4.07 1.80 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.30 1.94
28 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House
3.44 2.01 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.06 1.89 Fort Canning 4.28 1.88
29 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground
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
32 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road
3.33 2.00 Sultan Mosque 4.01 2.06 Fort Siloso 4.10 1.84
33 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall
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)
3.92 2.00 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)
4.07 1.92
35 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)
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
39 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)
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
42 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station
3.08 1.88 Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 3.57 1.79 Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 3.94 1.94
43 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)
3.06 1.89 OCBC Centre 3.55 1.80 The Cenotaph 3.91 1.91
50
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
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
48 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
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
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
Table 12: 53 sites ranked by respondents' assessment of the physical appeal of each site
Rank Aged 18-28 Mean SD Aged 29-48 Mean SD Aged 49 and above Mean SD
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
4 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)
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)
5.45 1.45 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
7 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)
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
10 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses
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
5.10 1.72 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)
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
16 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground
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
18 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)
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
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
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
26 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)
4.77 1.79 Benjamin Sheares Bridge 4.83 1.48 Chinese temple on Kusu Island 4.68 1.72
27 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)
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
31 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)
4.51 1.62 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)
4.71 1.58 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station
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
35 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall
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
37 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road
4.41 1.59 Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 4.45 1.70 Singapore Science Centre 4.44 1.68
38 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station
4.38 1.55 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)
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
43 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)
4.04 1.61 Pearl Bank Apartments 4.00 1.80 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)
4.30 1.74
53
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
44 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
4.01 1.58 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)
3.96 1.64 Pearl Bank Apartments 4.19 1.72
45 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)
3.88 1.82 OCBC Centre 3.93 1.69 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
4.17 1.76
46 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House
3.85 1.43 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
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)
3.63 1.71 Former Kallang Airport 3.93 1.81
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
51 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
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
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
Table 13. 53 sites ranked by respondents' level of perceived importance of each site
Rank Aged 18-28 Mean SD Aged 29-48 Mean SD Aged 49 and above Mean SD
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
5 Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat)
4.73 1.76 Kallang National Stadium 5.01 1.70 The Padang 5.16 1.82
6 Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution)
4.62 1.72 Old National Library 4.97 1.86 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)
4.98 1.82
7 The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building)
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
9 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses
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
4.77 1.75 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)
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
4.63 2.00 Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses
4.46 1.95
15 Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens)
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
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
22 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground
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
25 Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital)
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)
4.21 1.76 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)
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
32 Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building)
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
34 The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts)
3.73 2.02 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station
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
36 Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall
3.70 1.65 Old Hill Street Police Station 4.09 1.86 Peoples Park Complex 4.07 1.94
37 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
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
39 Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House
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)
3.83 1.92 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
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
44 Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station
3.45 1.85 OCBC Centre 3.59 1.80 OCBC Centre 3.88 1.87
56
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
45 Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road
3.45 1.78 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
3.59 1.79 Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground
3.85 1.95
46 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
3.43 1.84 The Changi Prison 3.58 2.07 Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex)
3.68 1.85
47 Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre)
3.41 1.80 NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College)
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
3.45 1.72 Former Kallang Airport 3.57 1.93
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
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
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
Original Merlion statue 0.501
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
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
Table 15. Pattern matrix for “knowledge” among middle-aged respondents
Aged 29-48 (Knowledge) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Knowledge of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.95 18.66
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.699
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.690
MacRitchie Reservoir Park 0.671
The Padang 0.668
Original Merlion statue 0.643
Raffles Hotel 0.623
Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre) 0.577
Old Hill Street Police Station 0.557
Former Supreme Court Building 0.522
Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution) 0.521
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
Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat) 0.578
Fort Canning 0.575
Kallang National Stadium 0.562
Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses 0.532
Knowledge of social institutions (Factor 3) 0.90 11.38
Sultan Mosque 0.629
The Changi Prison 0.600
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.536
Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital) 0.533
The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts) 0.508
Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex) 0.506
Bukit Brown Cemetery 0.504
Knowledge of early communities in Singapore (Factor 4) 0.89 9.51
Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall 0.667
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.566
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.527
Bukit Brown Cemetery 0.512
The Cenotaph 0.501
Knowledge of sites for education and learning (Factor 5) 0.84 7.34
Van Kleef Aquarium 0.747
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.564
Old National Library 0.502
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
59
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
Table 16. Pattern matrix for “knowledge” among youngest respondents
Aged 18-28 (Knowledge) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Knowledge of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.95 19.78
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.757
Original Merlion statue 0.742
The Padang 0.706
Raffles Hotel 0.687
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.657
Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses 0.628
Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution) 0.611
Rochor Centre 0.609
Civilian War Memorial 0.580
Kallang National Stadium 0.576
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.575
The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building) 0.572
Peoples Park Complex 0.562
Singapore Science Centre 0.553
Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat) 0.509
Knowledge of religious/cultural institutions built by immigrants in the colonial period (Factor 2)
0.77 8.74
Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens) 0.651
CHIJMES 0.618
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.512
Knowledge of sites for education and learning (Factor 3) 0.56 6.79
NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College) 0.638
Old National Library 0.570
Knowledge of pre-independence pioneers (Factor 4) 0.69 6.11
Bukit Brown Cemetery 0.717
Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital) 0.539
Knowledge of war heritage (Factor 5) 0.59 6.09
The Cenotaph 0.734
Fort Siloso 0.526
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
60
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
APPENDIX 3B FACTOR ANALYSIS OF MEMORIES
Table 17. Pattern matrix for “memories” among senior respondents
Aged 49 and above (Memories) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Memories of socio-cultural and historical symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.93 12.13
Van Kleef Aquarium 0.646
Old National Library 0.644
Fort Siloso 0.567
Fort Canning 0.551
CHIJMES 0.543
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.532
The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building) 0.521
Goodwood Park Hotel 0.517
Kallang National Stadium 0.510
Memories of state and commercial sites (Factor 2) 0.91 11.92
Old Hill Street Police Station 0.612
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.609
Former Supreme Court Building 0.578
The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts) 0.548
Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House 0.534
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.525
Raffles Hotel 0.505
Memories of symbols of nationhood and development (Factor 3) 0.84 11.62
Clifford Pier 0.627
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.621
The Padang 0.592
Benjamin Sheares Bridge 0.577
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.550
Original Merlion statue 0.533
Memories of sites of reverence (Factor 4) 0.85 9.78
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.620
The Cenotaph 0.609
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.528
Sri Mariamman Temple 0.511
Memories of popular places of leisure in 1980s-1990s (Factor 5) 0.81 9.71
Peoples Park Complex 0.673
Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens) 0.654
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.565
Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex) 0.509
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
61
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
Table 18. Pattern matrix for “memories” among middle-aged respondents
Aged 29-48 (Memories) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Memories of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.80 9.51
Singapore Science Centre 0.588
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.579
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.574
Original Merlion statue 0.526
Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens) 0.525
The Padang 0.521
Memories of places of leisure and entertainment (Factor 2) 0.51 8.94
CHIJMES 0.665
The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building) 0.608
Memories of sites of reverence (Factor 3) 0.88 8.35
The Cenotaph 0.717
Civilian War Memorial 0.589
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.563
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.554
Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall 0.522
Memories of popular retail sites in the 1980s and 1990s (Factor 4) 0.76 6.92
People’s Park Complex 0.709
Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex) 0.540
Rochor Centre 0.539
Memories of popular dating sites in the 1980s and 1990s (Factor 5) 0.66 6.86
Benjamin Sheares Bridge 0.633
Clifford Pier 0.544
Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre) 0.531
Memories of sites of ‘power’ (Factor 6) 0.51 6.36
Former Singapore Conference Hall and Trade Union House 0.706
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.522
Memories of growing up years (Factor 7) 0.67 5.16
Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground 0.597
Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital) 0.574
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.501
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
62
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
Table 19. Pattern matrix for “memories” among youngest respondents
Aged 18-28 (Memories) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Memories of places of leisure and entertainment (Factor 1) 0.72 7.23
CHIJMES 0.707
The Cathay (Previously Cathay Building) 0.589
Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat) 0.537
Memories of places where important events occurred (Factor 2) 0.73 7.03
The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts) 0.662
Kallang National Stadium 0.540
The Padang 0.506
Memories of night-time hangouts (Factor 3) 0.80 6.91
The Cenotaph 0.684
Sultan Mosque 0.653
Civilian War Memorial 0.569
Memories of iconic landmarks (Factor 4) 0.73 6.78
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.687
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.547
Original Merlion statue 0.530
Memories of Christian religious sites (Factor 5) 0.49 6.07
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.669
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.537
Memories of hipster and instagrammable sites (Factor 6) 0.36 5.73
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.619
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.577
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
63
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
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
variance Factor loading
Physical appeal of colonial architecture (Factor 1) 0.91 11.51
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.727
Raffles Hotel 0.670
Goodwood Park Hotel 0.635
Former Supreme Court Building 0.610
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.544
Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution) 0.520
Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses 0.511
Physical appeal of socio-cultural and historical symbols of Singapore (Factor 2)
0.84 10.21
Van Kleef Aquarium 0.688
Old National Library 0.591
Kallang National Stadium 0.569
Fort Canning 0.530
Fort Siloso 0.523
Physical appeal of symbols of nationhood and development (Factor 3) 0.85 10.15
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.639
Benjamin Sheares Bridge 0.602
Original Merlion statue 0.583
The Padang 0.580
MacRitchie Reservoir Park 0.570
Clifford Pier 0.560
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.528
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.519
Physical appeal of sites of reverence (Factor 4) 0.87 8.68
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.689
Sri Mariamman Temple 0.643
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.616
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
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.591
Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground 0.500
Physical appeal of landmarks along Victoria Street, Hill Street to New Bridge Road (Factor 6)
0.78 6.26
The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts) 0.660
Rochor Centre 0.568
Old Hill Street Police Station 0.557
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
64
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
Table 21. Pattern matrix for “physical appeal” among middle-aged respondents
Aged 29-48 (Physical appeal) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Physical appeal of colonial architecture (Factor 1) 0.91 13.85
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.743
CHIJMES 0.718
Raffles Hotel 0.678
Former Supreme Court Building 0.677
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.620
Goodwood Park Hotel 0.594
Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses 0.548
Singapore Art Museum (Previously St Joseph Institution) 0.509
Physical appeal of sites related to the history of Singapore's independence (Factor 2)
0.83 9.32
Kallang National Stadium 0.680
Fort Siloso 0.638
Fort Canning 0.582
Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital) 0.577
Singapore Science Centre 0.577
Physical appeal of cultural and religious sites (Factor 3) 0.84 7.21
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.664
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.652
Sri Mariamman Temple 0.637
Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens) 0.528
Physical appeal of early housing developments in the city (Factor 4) 0.79 5.28
Pearl Bank Apartments 0.665
Rochor Centre 0.584
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.513
Physical appeal of historical transport infrastructure (Factor 5) 0.67 5.24
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.670
Clifford Pier 0.650
Railway Bridge at Upper Bukit Timah Road 0.606
Physical appeal of iconic landmarks (Factor 6) 0.63 4.69
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.739
Benjamin Sheares Bridge 0.571
Original Merlion statue 0.511
Physical appeal of natural heritage (Factor 7) 0.55 4.59
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.731
MacRitchie Reservoir Park 0.714
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
65
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
Table 22. Pattern matrix for “physical appeal” among youngest respondents
Aged 18-28 (Physical appeal) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Physical appeal of colonial architecture (Factor 1) 0.84 10.14
Raffles Hotel 0.693
Goodwood Park Hotel 0.615
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.600
CHIJMES 0.598
Former Supreme Court Building 0.570
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.528
Physical appeal of Singaporean citizenship markers (Factor 2) 0.79 9.41
Original Merlion statue 0.676
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.630
Singapore Science Centre 0.574
The Padang 0.565
Civilian War Memorial 0.546
Physical appeal of sites in conservation news (Factor 3) 0.76 5.75
Pearl Bank Apartments 0.713
Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground 0.563
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.542
Physical appeal of places of leisure (Factor 4) 0.42 5.45
Haw Par Villa (Previously Tiger Balm Gardens) 0.620
Fort Canning 0.575
Physical appeal of places of worship (Factor 5) 0.75 4.87
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.652
Sri Mariamman Temple 0.539
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
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.507
Physical appeal of places of learning (Factor 7) 0.52 4.17
Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall 0.601
Old National Library 0.599
Physical appeal of Peranakan architecture (Factor 8) 0.69 4.12
NUS Baba House 0.719
Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 0.718
Physical appeal of natural heritage (Factor 9) 0.54 3.68
MacRitchie Reservoir Park 0.710
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.590
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
66
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
APPENDIX 3D FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE
Table 23. Pattern matrix for “perceived importance” among senior respondents
Aged 49 and above (Importance) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Perceived importance of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.90 13.02
The Padang 0.678
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.669
Benjamin Sheares Bridge 0.656
Original Merlion statue 0.638
Clifford Pier 0.597
MacRitchie Reservoir Park 0.553
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.543
Former Supreme Court Building 0.537
Former Tanjong Pagar Railway Station 0.502
Perceived importance of socio-cultural, historic and religious sites (Factor 2) 0.91 10.86
NUS Baba House 0.674
Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 0.604
The Cenotaph 0.556
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.518
NUS Bukit Timah Campus (Previously Raffles College) 0.512
Sultan Mosque 0.509
Perceived importance of colonial architecture (Factor 3) 0.93 10.39
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.500
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.653
CHIJMES 0.597
Goodwood Park Hotel 0.568
Raffles Hotel 0.536
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.516
Perceived importance of everyday places of a bygone era (Factor 4) 0.85 10.06
People's Park Complex 0.651
Capitol Building (Previously Capitol Theatre) 0.588
Rochor Centre 0.586
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.552
Perceived importance of Chinese religious sites (Factor 5) 0.71 8.87
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.686
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.623
Perceived importance of demolished sites (Factor 6) 0.56 6.75
Kallang National Stadium 0.656
Van Kleef Aquarium 0.628
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
67
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
Table 24. Pattern matrix for “perceived importance” among middle-aged respondents
Aged 29-48 (Importance) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Perceived importance of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.92 15.03
Raffles Hotel 0.694
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.657
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.637
CHIJMES 0.620
Boat Quay warehouses and shop houses 0.575
MacRitchie Reservoir Park 0.554
The Padang 0.553
Fort Canning 0.540
Goodwood Park Hotel 0.524
Perceived importance of places of worship (Factor 2) 0.90 9.92
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.667
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.643
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.600
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.593
Sri Mariamman Temple 0.570
Perceived importance of early housing and retail developments in the city (Factor 3)
0.80 8.47
Peoples Park Complex 0.690
Rochor Centre 0.602
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.592
Perceived importance of social institutions (Factor 4) 0.71 7.42
Kallang National Stadium 0.603
Alexandra Hospital (Previously British Military Hospital) 0.527
Sultan Mosque 0.522
Perceived importance of major air and land transport infrastructure (Factor 5)
0.34 6.94
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.603
Benjamin Sheares Bridge 0.541
Perceived importance of sites related to the history of Singapore's independence (Factor 6)
0.88 6.41
The Cenotaph 0.611
The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts) 0.576
Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall 0.541
Civilian War Memorial 0.530
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
68
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
Table 25. Pattern matrix for “perceived importance” among youngest respondents
Aged 18-28 (Importance) Reliability % of
variance Factor loading
Perceived importance of symbols of Singapore (Factor 1) 0.88 14.02
Original Merlion statue 0.736
Singapore Botanic Gardens 0.702
The Padang 0.680
Changi Airport Control Tower 0.620
Fullerton Hotel (Previously Fullerton Building) 0.586
Telok Ayer Market (a.k.a. Lau Pa Sat) 0.579
Raffles Hotel 0.508
Perceived importance of learning journey sites (Factor 2) 0.88 8.54
Fort Canning 0.651
Civilian War Memorial 0.575
Fort Siloso 0.573
Singapore Science Centre 0.515
Perceived importance of sites for law and order (Factor 3) 0.84 6.39
The State Courts (Previously Subordinate Courts) 0.731
Former Supreme Court Building 0.636
The Changi Prison 0.605
Perceived importance of unique Singaporean architecture (Factor 4) 0.65 6.06
NUS Baba House 0.673
Golden Mile Complex (Previously Woh Hup Complex) 0.582
Perceived importance of places of leisure (Factor 5) 0.76 5.77
Goodwood Park Hotel 0.677
Toa Payoh Lorong 6 Dragon Playground 0.542
Tiong Bahru Pre-War Flats 0.505
Perceived importance of Christian religious sites (Factor 6) 0.74 5.39
Saint Andrew’s Cathedral 0.739
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd 0.735
Perceived importance of Early Chinese community (Factor 7) 0.85 4.87
Bukit Brown Cemetery 0.577
Emerald Hill Terrace Houses 0.576
Thian Hock Keng Temple 0.539
Perceived importance of Nanyang Chinese diaspora(Factor 8) 0.62 4.22
Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall 0.549
Chinese temple on Kusu Island 0.529
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalisation % of variance based on rotation sums of squared loadings
69
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
APPENDIX 4 REGRESSION MODELS FOR NATIONAL IDENTITY Table 26. Regression model predicting national identity for senior respondents
Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients
Variables B Std. Error Beta
(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*
Value of heritage 0.48 0.04 0.47***
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
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
Table 27. Regression model predicting national identity for middle-age respondents
Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients
Variables B Std. Error Beta
(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
Value of heritage 0.61 0.05 0.48***
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
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
Table 28 Regression model predicting national identity for respondents for youngest respondents
Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients
Variables B Std. Error Beta
(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
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) 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: ips@nus.edu.sg 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
top related