consuming colonial nostalgia: the monumentalisation of historic hotels in urban south-east asia

Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 46, No. 3, December 2005ISSN 1360-7456, pp255–265

Consuming colonial nostalgia: The monumentalisationof historic hotels in urban South-East Asia

Maurizio PeleggiDepartment of History, National University of Singapore, 11 Arts Link, Singapore 117570, Singapore.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract: This article examines the renovation and commercial re-launch in the 1990s of some ofthe grand hotels built in South-East Asia during the high colonial era (1880s–1910s) and their socialconstruction as historic monuments. The analysis focuses on architectural enhancement and discur-sive authentication as the key practices whereby the semblance of historic authenticity is bestowedon these hotels and made available as nostalgia to consumers. The article also considers whetherrenovated colonial hotels should be regarded as sites of consumption or as emerging ‘mnemonicsites’, filling in the vacuum caused by the progressive obliteration of ‘mnemonic environments’ inSouth-East Asia’s urban landscape.

Keywords: architectural enhancement, colonial nostalgia, discursive authentication, historicalness

Around the turn of the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies, a modern architectural type gearedto the expanding market of intercontinentaltravellers made its appearance in the cities ofcolonial South-East Asia: the grand hotel. Thebuildings’ size and facilities and their superiorstandards of services distinguished these hotelsfrom other kinds of tourist accommodation, suchas inns and travel lodges. Grand hotels in BritishBurma, Malaya and French Indochina made itpossible for colonists and travellers of the highimperial age to experience levels of comfort andluxury previously associated exclusively withthe metropolis. After surviving the financial cri-sis of the late 1920s to early 1930s, caused bythe slump in the local rubber and tin industries,the golden days of South-East Asia’s grand hotelscame to an end with the Japanese occupationof the region in the early 1940s. Following de-colonisation, economic and infrastructural mod-ernisation in the 1960s and 1970s brought to theSouth-East Asian cityscape the boxy buildingsof the hospitality industry’s international chains,which heralded the age of jet-propelled masstourism. Those colonial-era grand hotels thathad escaped demolition could not match thelevel of luxury and comfort of new establish-ments and thus attracted largely budget tourists.In the region’s socialist countries, the grand ho-

tels often became state guest houses. Then inthe 1990s, a number of surviving colonial hotelsunderwent much-advertised renewal and com-mercial re-launch.

Having been refitted with all the amenitiesof five-star establishments (pools, spas, multi-ple bars, restaurants etc.), renovated colonialhotels nevertheless exploit their historical ca-chet to the fullest in their marketing strategies.That facet of global consumer culture that ref-erences colonial imagery, especially conspicu-ous in tourism but noticeable also in cinemaand fashion, has been discussed in terms of‘colonial blues’ (Panivong, 1996) and ‘colonialnostalgia’ (Peleggi, 1996). This article examinestwo modalities at work in the monumentalisa-tion of colonial-era hotels for nostalgia-orientedtourist consumption in contemporary South-East Asia. The first modality, which operatesin the material domain, is architectural en-hancement whereby the buildings and interiordecor of the colonial hotels are refashionedto achieve the semblance of historical authen-ticity. The second modality, which operates inthe imaginary domain, is discursive authentica-tion whereby myths about the hotels’ past areforged to claim monumental status as well asto serve as marketing tools. The article con-cludes by considering whether monumentalised

C© Victoria University of Wellington, 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing.

M. Peleggi

colonial hotels should be regarded, followingHewison (1987), as just another aspect of theheritage industry’s commodification of physicalsites and locales or as emerging ‘mnemonicsites’ (Nora 1989), which act as repositoriesfor social memory in South-East Asia’s rapidlychanging urban landscape.

Architectural enhancement: Historicity versushistoricalness

Monumentalised in the 1990s as historical andarchitectural landmarks, colonial grand hotelsin their early social life attracted customers withthe latest technological innovations. Above all,the wonders of electricity – lighting, hot runningwater and of special importance in the tropi-cal climate, fans – followed by lifts, telephonesand refrigerators (the latter allowed for the stor-age of easily decaying produce such as meatand cheese, central to the British and French di-etary habits) were to be enjoyed. The provisionof uncommonly high standards of accommoda-tion and nutrition was not, however, the only at-traction. The appeal of the grand hotels lay alsoin the possibility of reliving, through cuisine, fur-niture, decor and entertainment, the metropoli-tan lifestyle that travellers had left behind.Besides travellers, the grand hotels’ gardencourts, bars and billiard rooms also attracted res-ident colonial administrators and professionalsas well as the upper echelons of Asian commu-nities when not barred from entry. Grand hotelsoffered to the different social groups inhabitingthe colonial city a space for socialisation that,like the staged ‘European-ness’ of the districtsin which the hotels were situated, attemptedto domesticate the otherness of the indigenouscityscape. Such a setting gave the Europeancommunity an appearance of normalcy in con-trast to the alienation which colonialists oftenexperienced in upcountry towns and stations,an alienation powerfully evoked by George Or-well’s Burmese Days.

The recent renewal of South-East Asia’s colo-nial hotels has generally entailed the conceal-ment of infrastructural elements and removalof decorative accretions (mostly dating fromthe 1960s and 1970s), which were discordantwith the original designs; and the re-creationof a ‘colonial’ decor through the use of largelypseudoauthentic fixings, furniture and accou-

trements. Such ‘restorations’ are legitimate asthey concern private properties and are con-sistent with the commercial nature of hotels.Yet, it should be clear that the aim is not to re-store hotels to their original state but to achievean antiquarian effect while, in fact, upgradingtheir facilities. This approach is distinct from themaintenance option, which ensures a historicbuilding’s sound condition without effecting ma-jor alterations, and the museal option, which ab-stracts the building from daily usage and trans-forms it into an object of aesthetic contempla-tion. It is thus better described as ‘architecturalenhancement’ for its affinity with the enhance-ment or rehabilitation of urban conservation ar-eas (Larkham, 1996: 146). As in the case of ur-ban landscapes, the enhancement of colonialhotels raises the question of whether its outcomeis the valorisation of the building’s historic andarchitectural significance or its alteration to suitthe needs and tastes of present-day users. Thisquestion can also be extended to the spatial,urban and architectural relationships betweenindividual hotel buildings, especially if they areofficially designated as monuments or heritagesites, and the surrounding cityscape.

The enhancement of Singapore’s Raffles Ho-tel is in many ways paradigmatic because ithas proven to be a remarkable commercial suc-cess and a model for other similar undertakings(Figure 1). The Raffles Hotel was established in1887 by the Sarkies brothers, a legendary South-East Asia-based family of Armenian hoteliers.Starting business as a bungalow on the water-front, it acquired its main building in 1889;in 1904 the suite-only Bras Basah Wing wasadded. In the early 1930s, because of the de-cline in competition from other establishments(particularly the Hotel de l’Europe, which wastorn down), the Raffles Hotel became Singa-pore’s prime hotel only to be transformed intoofficer quarters during the Japanese occupation(1942–1945). In the post-war period it was mod-ernised (air conditioning was installed in 1950),but since the 1970s it has had to fend off com-petition from newer international-chain hotels(Augustin, 1988). Finally, between March 1989and September 1991, the Raffles was en-tirely redeveloped at a cost of $S160 million(or $US90 million). The write-up on ‘Restorationand redevelopment’ in the Raffles Hotel Sale Kitissued by its Public Relations Department points

256 C© Victoria University of Wellington, 2005

Consuming colonial nostalgia

to 1915 as ‘the benchmark year used for therestoration’. The restoration is presented in thefollowing terms:

The furnishings throughout reflect the style andambience of the Hotel’s early heyday. Over fourhundred pieces of existing furniture were re-stored and re-used in Raffles. These items bearidentifying brass crests, signifying that they arepart of Raffles Hotel’s past and are displayedthroughout the Hotel. In addition, more than8,000 pieces of silver and historical china,some dating back to the era of the Hotel’sfounders, Sarkies brothers, have been invento-ried and dated as to the period of use. The his-torical pieces are used when appropriate andform the basis of historical displays throughoutthe Hotel and the adjoining facilities.

The distinctive restaurants and bars within Raf-fles Hotel recall the atmosphere of a bygoneera. The Tiffin Room, adjacent to the lobby,continues as the traditional main dining area.The Raffles Grill, the elegant fine dining room,provides a clear view through the Palm Courtwhile the Writers Bar continues to pay tribute tothe novelists and travel writers who have be-come part of the Raffles Hotel legend. The Bar &Billiard is decidedly masculine, as it was in theearly 1900s, with tile and hardwood floors andperiod furnishings. Two antique billiard tables,one of them a Raffles Hotel original, the otherfrom Government House, take pride of place.(Raffles Hotel Sales Kit, undated, unpaged)

Somewhat ironically, the renovation of theRaffles Hotel followed its listing by Singapore’sMonument Preservation Board in 1987 to markits centennial. Although to all intents a commer-cial endeavour, the redevelopment was publi-cised as the recovery of a major piece of the city’sarchitectural heritage and the hotel has since fig-ured prominently in the publications of the Na-tional Heritage Board and the Singapore TourismBoard (STB). Now surrounded by three high-risehotels (one of which designed by I.M. Pei wasfor a while the tallest hotel in the world), the‘enhanced’ Raffles Hotel has been enlarged bythe addition of an Arcade built in the same Ital-ianate style as the main building’s and housingboutiques, food outlets, a gastronomy school,ballroom, a nineteenth century-style playhouseand a museum/souvenir shop. The hotel now oc-

cupies an entire block of Singapore’s ‘Civic andCultural District’ (CCD) along Beach Road. TheCCD is a designated conservation area wherethe prime architectural remains of the colonialera – including the City Hall, Victoria Theatre,Supreme Court, the National Museums etc. – arelocated. These nineteenth century buildings sur-vive as part of a high-tech cityscape subjectedto continuous transformation.

Historic conservation in Singapore falls un-der the purview of the Urban RedevelopmentAuthority (URA), which in 1974 replaced theUrban Renewal Department (Urban Redevel-opment Authority, 1975: 2–3). The URA hasreversed the policy of the first decade of Sin-gapore’s independence (1965–1974) when thecolonial urban fabric was obliterated as an im-pediment to modern development (Tung, 2001),and has since avowedly strived ‘to achieve a highdegree of authenticity’ in conservation projects(Kong and Yeoh, 1994: 263, my emphasis). Theoutcome of most URA conservation initiativeshas been the transformation of surviving colo-nial and vernacular architecture and historicdistricts (e.g. Chinatown and Boat and ClarkeQuays) into a mere urban scenography for theconsumption practices of tourists and affluentprofessionals, both locals and expatriates (Tayand Goh, 2003). This newly invented ‘historic’cityscape is the cornerstone of the marketing ofSingapore by STB as ‘New Asia’ – a vibrant,multicultural, cosmopolitan city state where tra-dition and modernity mingle harmoniously.

Emphasis on the renovation of the RafflesHotel as the recovery of a civic monumentalso overshadowed the undertaking’s financialdimension, which is worth detailing given itsremarkable success. At the start of the redevel-opment in 1989, a new company, Raffles Inter-national Ltd, was formed; this later became thehotel management arm of Raffles Holdings, acompany listed on the Singapore stock exchange(and since 2000 a subsidiary of CapitaLand Ltd).In 1993, Raffles International created a lower-tier hotel brand (Merchant Court) and startedrenovation of two colonial-era hotels in Cambo-dia, which both reopened at the end of 1997: theHotel le Royal (in Phnom Penh) and the GrandHotel d’Angkor (in Siem Reap). In 1997, RafflesInternational ventured outside Asia by buyinghotels in London, Hamburg and Beverly Hills.The acquisition of the Swissotel group in 2001

C© Victoria University of Wellington, 2005 257

M. Peleggi

Figure 1. Raffles Hotel, Singapore

put Raffles International in control of 38 hotelsand resorts in 17 countries under three differentbrand names, making it one of the world’s lead-ing hospitality industry companies. Raffles Inter-national’s eponymous empire-builder would nodoubt be proud of what has been achieved inhis name.

Following the redevelopment of the Raf-fles Hotel, two other establishments that orig-inally belonged to the Sarkies’ hotel portfoliowere extensively renovated: The Strand Hotel inYangon (Myanmar) and the Eastern and Orien-tal in Penang (Malaysia). The Strand was built in1901, right across from the quay on the YangonRiver, as a three-storey building in a neoclas-sical idiom (Figure 2). In the intervening yearsit underwent a series of alterations, most no-tably the closure of its verandas and the replace-ment of its entrance’s cast-iron canopy with aconcrete colonnaded driveway. The latest ma-jor renovation was carried out between May1990 and November 1993 by a joint ventureformed by the state tourism agency, MyanmarHotels and Tourism Services, and a group ofHong Kong investors led by maverick hotelierAdrian Zecha. After Zecha’s withdrawal fromthe venture, the Development Bank of Singa-pore stepped in, and since 1999 the hotel hasbeen run by the Singapore-based General HotelManagement (Augustin, 2003).

The Strand’s advertising material states that thechronological benchmark for the renovation was

the ‘glory days’ of the late 1920s, when the hotel,after being sold by the Sarkies to two Armenianentrepreneurs in 1925, was given a thoroughmakeover (Augustin, 2003). Yet, according toDavid Wordsworth (pers. comm., 11 September2002), an architect involved in the renovationworks, the possibility of faithful restoration wascurtailed by the lack of documentary evidence.Instead, the ground floor was redesigned withthe typical features of a colonial grand hotel (aspacious lounge, tea room, bar, dining roomand a grand ballroom, as well as boutiques)and guest rooms were reduced from 52 to 32,making them far more spacious and luxuriousthan they had ever been. What gives The Strandan edge over other enhanced colonial hotels isthe authenticity of its surroundings: downtownYangon, featuring arguably the largest concen-tration of late Victorian and Edwardian architec-ture in the world (Britain included), which hasremained virtually unchanged since the end ofcolonial rule. Within a few blocks on either sideof The Strand are the General Post Office, HighCourt, City Hall and the Law Court buildings, aswell as several government and commercial of-fices. Far from sanitised, Yangon’s architecturaltreasure house is part of a living, and at timescrumbling urban environment where the city’sinhabitants (and not foreign tourists) take centrestage.

The Eastern and Oriental Hotel (E&O) is lo-cated along the waterfront of George Town, the



Figure 2. The Strand Hotel, Yangon

urban centre of Pulau Penang (Malaysia) wherethe British established a free port in 1786. TheE&O was renovated between 1996 and 2000 ata reported cost of 75 million Malaysian Ring-git ($US19 million). Even before the hotel’s re-opening in March 2001, its renewal, whichentailed major modifications to the buildingand the construction of a mall and garage, at-tracted the criticism of the Asia and West PacificNetwork for Urban Conservation (AWPNUC),a non-government organisation (NGO) estab-lished in Penang in 1991. Fergus T. Maclaren, aCanadian consultant to AWPNUC, charged thatthe E&O building had been ‘completely guttedwith only the entrance remaining as the vestigeof what was to be a rejuvenation of the old dowa-ger’ (New Straits Times, 28 September 1998).Maclaren referred ironically to the renovationof the E&O as ‘Raffleisation’ and lamented that,while the E&O was left standing by virtue of itsname, nearby colonial buildings were demol-ished to make room for a new high-rise hotel.Whether justified or not, such public criticism ofthe redevelopment points to an inclusive politi-cal space in which George Town’s municipal ad-ministration, the Penang state government, theMalaysian federal government and NGOs andcivic associations (such as AWPNUC and the

Penang Heritage Trust) are engaged in negoti-ations over issues of urban development andhistoric conservation that affect both residentsand the tourism industry (Khoo and Jenkins,2002).

In Vietnam too, where the government hasvigorously promoted international tourism sincethe early 1990s, colonial hotels have been givennew lustre. Hanoi’s major historic hotel, theMetropole, was built in 1901 as a four-storeybuilding with an Italianate facade and mansardroof (later removed) (Figure 3). In the earlydecades of the twentieth century, the Metropolevied with the no longer extant Hotel du Coqd’Or for the title of best hotel in town. After theend of the Vietnam War, it was nationalised withthe name Thong Nhat (‘Unification’) and used asa state guesthouse. Following the launch of themarket-friendly policy of doi moi in 1986, thePullman International hotel group entered ne-gotiations with the state agency, Hanoi Tourism,and in 1990 a $US10 million redevelopmentproject began. The project was carried out in twophases: the first phase (mid-1990–early 1992)saw the renovation of the original hotel build-ing while in the second phase (1992–1996), anew Opera Wing was constructed (so namedbecause of the proximity to the 1911 Opera


M. Peleggi

Figure 3. Sofitel Metropole Hotel, Hanoi

House). The Opera Wing was the recipient ofa national architectural award (Augustin, 2001:149).

The Metropole, now enlarged to 232 rooms(from its original 80 rooms) and endowed witha French and Vietnamese restaurant, a pool, fit-ness centre and cooking school, reopened inMarch 1992 as the Pullman Hotel Metropole. Itwas soon after acquired by the French hospitalityand service group Accor, and its name changedto Sofitel Metropole.1 Accor also manages twocolonial-era hotels in Dalat, a hill station builtby the French at the beginning of the twentiethcentury in the Lang Bian plateau. They includethe majestic Sofitel Dalat Palace (originally LangBian Palace) which reopened in May 1995 af-ter renovations effected by American billionaireLarry Hillblom at the stellar cost of $US40 mil-lion (Templer, 1998; Jennings, 2003) and Novo-tel Dalat (originally Hotel du Parc), built as amore affordable alternative to the Lang BianPalace in 1932 and reinstated in January 1998.

The presence of a French company behindthe resuscitation of Vietnam’s tourist relics mightraise the spectre of neocolonialism. Indeed, theFrench (along with the Japanese) are the domi-nant international tourist groups to Vietnam and

Figure 4. Hotel Majestic, Ho Chi Minh City

the country is a main target of Francophonie,France’s promotion of cultural and commercialties with its ex-overseas colonies. In fact, themarket for colonial nostalgia is also targetedby the state tourism company, SaigonTourist,2

which manages Ho Chi Minh City’s three sur-viving colonial hotels – the Continental, theMajestic and the Grand, all situated alongthe old Rue Catinat (now Dong Khoi), whichwas the main commercial street of colonialSaigon and today a foreign tourist enclave. TheContinental’s literary pedigree and historicrecord as the city’s oldest hotel, dating to thebeginnings of French colonisation in the early1860s, are sufficient reasons to ensure a con-stant influx of guests. Dating to the late colonialperiod and popular today with Asian tour groupsis the white-washed Riviera-style edificed Ho-tel Majestic which started operations in 1925(Figure 4). Between August 1994 and July 1995,it underwent a $US550 000 restoration report-edly aimed at removing spurious modifications(Ang, 2003: 14–17). The smaller Grand Hotel,which opened in 1930 as the Saigon Palace rightacross from the Majestic, is also popular withmany Asian visitors today.



Despite differences in their extent and fidelity,the architectural enhancements detailed aboveare all aimed at creating a particular atmo-sphere, which I term ‘colonial ambiance’. Thehallmark of colonial ambiance is the use of nat-ural materials for building, furnishing and decor.The ‘natural’ quality of wooden floors, cane fur-niture, woollen carpets, silk and cotton uphol-stery, potted palms and tropical flowers con-trasts manifestly with modern hotels’ use of high-tech materials (steel, glass, acrylic textiles andfabrics). By evoking pre-industrial authenticity,natural materials may induce guests to relivethe destination’s exoticism, visibly lost to mod-ernisation, by escaping imaginatively to a timepast. In so doing, the visitor experiences a dou-ble displacement: spatial displacement, which istypical of the tourist quest; and temporal dis-placement, which is the dimension proper ofnostalgia (Davis, 1979). It is worth noting thatthis spatiotemporal displacement is the oppo-site experience of that which colonial grand ho-tels originally afforded to weary travellers andresidents: temporary replacement in the famil-iar time and space of Europe. Displacement ina space and time ‘other’ is also the opposite ex-perience of that afforded by international chainhotels, which French anthropologist Marc Auge(1998) has termed – along with airports, shop-ping malls and theme parks – ‘non-places’ (non-lieux): places void of historical and/or culturalconnotations, so that being there feels like be-ing nowhere in particular.

Although colonial ambiance is an obviousinstance of ‘staged authenticity’ (MacCannell,1973), it can be argued, following Cohen (1988),that the degree to which it is experienced as‘staged’ rather than ‘authentic’ varies accordingto the perceptual and emotional negotiations ofindividual consumers. To be sure, the colonialpast as relived from the lounge chairs of South-East Asia’s enhanced historic hotels takes on alevel of material sophistication that surpasses byfar historical reality. What is important, however,is to distinguish between authenticity as a qual-ity ascribed to a place or locale by the tourist orsightseer, and historicity as the continuous pres-ence of history in a given place (cf. Choay, 2001:131–137). In order to possess historicity, the rat-tan armchairs, the veranda where they stand andthe building where the veranda belongs to, mustbe integrated into the urban fabric as an organic

whole. When this is not the case, historicity is re-placed by what Baudrillard (2003: 74, footnote2) calls historialite (translated as ‘historicalness’in English): ‘a refusal of history masked by theexaltation of the signs of history: history simul-taneously invoked and denied’.

Discursive authentication: Historicalnarratives and commercial mythologies

Discursive authentication supports the colonialhotels’ claims to the status of historic land-marks and architectural monuments by weav-ing (often fragmentary) documentary evidencewith witnesses’ accounts to forge foundationalmyths, which are articulated and reproducedin printed and electronic media. Printed me-dia include general tourist literature such asguidebooks, travel and lifestyle periodicals aswell as the hotels’ dedicated material includ-ing postcards, brochures, newsletters, in-housemagazines3 and corporate histories (e.g. Liu,1992 and ‘The Most Famous Hotels in the World’book series by Famoushotel Organization). TheInternet has also become an important source oftourist information as well as an essential mar-keting tool since the late 1990s. All the hotelsdiscussed above possess World Wide Web sites,often linked to the Internet portals of their re-spective property and management groups. TheE&O website is especially evocative: its ani-mated opening frame alternates sepia photos ofthe hotel’s founders, its original facade and ar-chitectural details with the accompaniment of amajestic musical score, adding visual and sonicdimensions to the hotel’s advertising motto: ‘Areturn to elegance’.

Marketing synergies are also being createdin South-East Asia’s nostalgia-oriented tourismindustry. The hotel association ‘Legends of In-doChina’ – a brand-name that is in itself aninvocation of mythical status – markets 11historic hotels and resorts as well as the lux-ury cruise Road to Mandalay and the East-ern and Oriental Express train (both ownedby the Oriental Express group).4 The latter hasbeen operating since September 1993 on theSingapore–Butterworth–Bangkok railway line,itself a legacy of British colonialism. UtilisingJapanese-built carriages refurbished with an eyeto the stage-set trains of 1930s Hollywood ex-otic dramas (The Sydney Morning Herald, 12


M. Peleggi

August 1993), the Eastern and Oriental Express isa variant on wheels of enhanced colonial hotels– referencing an imagined colonial past whiletargeting a specific segment of the nostalgia-seeking tourist market, the historic train buffs(Dann, 1994).

Although this is not the place for an analy-sis of the textual and visual representations ofmonumentalised colonial hotels in advertisingand tourist literature, one can note that suchhotels are featured not simply as places for ac-commodation, but also as sightseeing attrac-tions, worth at least a visit for a drink. Thisis especially true for the Raffles Hotel and itsBar and Billiard Room, birthplace of the Singa-pore Sling – a cocktail concocted by Hainanesebartender Ngiam Tong Boon in 1915 – which,in its tangible form and as a discursive trope,stands as a metonym for the Raffles Hotel it-self. In fact, as a hotel that most keenly exploitshistory as a marketing tool and whose memori-alisation has no match in South-East Asia (andperhaps the world), the Raffles has not only gen-erated the largest output of dedicated publica-tions, but has even established its own musealself-representation in the form of the RafflesHotel Museum.

The Raffles Hotel Museum is located in the ho-tel’s new Arcade (where admission is free) andits exhibits include old maps, photographs, en-gravings, postcards and guidebooks not only ofthe hotel and Singapore, but also of other lo-cations in the British empire. Remains of theoriginal china, silverware and other memora-bilia are also displayed behind glass cases orstored in wooden drawers. The exhibits were as-sembled at the time of the hotel’s redevelopmentby Gretchen Liu with an ad hoc budget (pers.comm., 20 August 2003). As with traditional mu-seums, the display is informed by the museolog-ical practices of selection, labelling and order-ing, which help to structure the historical nar-rative and confer on the exhibits the authorityto speak for the past. As with many contempo-rary museums, the exhibition space is seamlesslyjoined to the souvenir shop which sells merchan-dise inspired by the Raffles Hotel, such as cups,T-shirts, books and scale-models. As the mu-seum’s leaflet explains,

The Raffles Hotel Museum looks at the his-tory of Raffles Hotel largely in the context of

the Golden Age of Travel. This period, roughly1880 to 1939, saw the rise of popular tourismand coincided with the opening of the Hotel,its early rapid expansion, and its heyday in thefirst decades of this [20th] century. This was theera when Singapore was known as the ‘Cross-roads of the East’ and the Raffles Hotel labelwas seen on the steamer trunk of every sea-soned traveller. (The Raffles Museum Leaflet,undated, unpaged)

Establishing foundation dates is especially im-portant because these make commemorationpossible and validate claims to having a ‘placein history’. Narratives of origins, like the onequoted above, situate the heydays of colonialhotels in a time past whose defining traits aremythical more than historical: ‘a bygone era ofabsolute comfort and old world opulence’ in thewords of the Raffles Hotel Sales Kit (undated,unpaged). Such a perspective conveniently ig-nores rising opposition to colonial rule since thebeginning of the twentieth century as well asthe less pleasurable realities of colonial life. Al-though openly evoked, ‘colonialism’ as a term,never appears in promotional narratives becauseit remains to this day politically charged. Theproduct of discursive authentication is thus, aswith architectural enhancement, historicalness:the denial of history behind the exaltation of itssigns.

Prominent among these signs are some de-parted authors, whom all the hotels invoke aspast ‘patrons’ – in the double sense of being aclient as well as its tutelary figure. Suites in theRaffles Hotel and the E&O, as well Bangkok’sOriental, are named after writers who put the so-cial and historical experience of colonialism atthe centre of their work, such as Joseph Conrad,Rudyard Kipling, Somerset Maugham and JamesH. Michener. Publications about the RafflesHotel unfailingly mention Somerset Maugham’srepeated stays there, the first in 1921, when hereportedly ‘used to sit under the frangipani treein the left-hand corner of the Palm Court . . .

[where] he worked every morning until lunch’(Augustin, 1988: 26). The Metropole too claimsMaugham as its guest in 1923, while he waswriting The Gentleman in the Parlour. As forGraham Greene, his first visit in Hanoi was in1951 and he stayed at the Metropole to reportfor Paris Match. It was reported that he often



sat at the hotel bar enjoying his favourite drink,dry vermouth, or talking with friends. His fa-mous novel The Quiet American, about Amer-ican involvement in Indochina, was completedaround this time (Sofitel Metropole Newsletter,2002/2003: 3). The Metropole thus claims ashare of paternity in Greene’s opus while alsoappropriating his name for a drink served at itsbar: the ‘Graham Greene Martini’.

Writers such as Maugham and Greene, whoseplace in the collective memory rests on theirliterary achievements as much as on their dis-tinctive lifestyle, act as signs of history in thediscursive domain of authentication in much thesame way that ceiling fans, rattan armchairs andpotted palms serve in the material domain of en-hancement. Because of their place in the collec-tive memory, such authors validate the heritagestatus of the hotels they once patronised muchmore effectively than world royalty and celebri-ties, who also get a mention in the hotels’ booksof illustrious guests but whose transient statusaccords less effectively with the hotels’ claimsto monumentality. At the same time, these lit-erary figures provide a mirror for the self-imageof colonial hotels’ target clientele: The classyupmarket travellers whose economic as well associal and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984) dis-tinguishes them from the tourist masses, whotravel in package tours and find accommodationin international-chain hotels.

Ironically, the democratisation of tourism,which has allowed an ever-growing number ofpeople to travel for leisure since the 1960s andwhich has made tourism one of the world’slargest industries, is perceived to have debasedits elitist nature and hence its value as a markerof social status. As an advertisement for the East-ern and Oriental Express puts it, ‘[f]or those witha taste for the finer things in life, the majesticEastern & Oriental Express train awaits to wel-come you into a world of luxury, romance andspecial excitement’. Monumentalised colonialhotels, and their variants on wheels and keels,thus promise the recovery of early tourism’spristine condition: distinction-in-motion. And ifcolonial-era travellers – mythical figures iden-tified by leather trunks, linen suits, silk scarvesand panama hats – are offered as models to themodern consumer in search of distinction, at theother end of the hospitality industry’s spectrum– the service providers in the form of waiters,

chambermaids, bellboys and so forth – old pat-terns are equally persistent as South-East Asianscontinue to serve (with a smile) a largely foreignclientele, making colonial nostalgia appear tobe something more substantial than a figment ofthe imagination.

Conclusion: Monumentalised hotels and socialmemory in ‘New Asia’

Commenting on urban development in South-East Asia since the mid-1970s, Singapore-basedarchitect Tay Kheng Soon laments: ‘[t]he finersensibilities and refined habits of life are beingconcurrently obliterated by an induced and self-imposed amnesia’ (Tay and Goh, 2003: 20). Thisamnesia, Tay opines, is the result of the relentlesspursuit of profit and the blind imitation of eventhe shallowest trends in Western culture such aspost-modern architecture. As a result, ‘[t]he aes-thetics of place – local, specific, rooted – has novoice and therefore no place in the new scheme’(Tay and Goh, 2003: 16). Although one mayagree with Tay’s devastating analysis of South-East Asia’s urban malaise, it would be disingen-uous to think that the amnesiac condition hedenounces is embraced, rather than suffered, bylocal city dwellers, whose loss of identity andlonging for rootedness in a familiar place areall too evident. Civic associations in Singaporehave been lamenting for years the obliteration ofpublic buildings regarded by many to embodya distinctively local identity, as shown by therecent controversy over the demolition of theNational Library built in 1960 (Kwok, 1999).Even in much less regulated urban environmentsthan Singapore, such as in Penang and Bangkok,local communities have taken action to preserveelements of the built landscape that do not fitin with what the state enshrines as ‘heritage’for ideological and/or commercial purposes (seeLogan, 2002).

According to French historian PierreNora (1989), the progressive obliterationof ‘mnemonic environments’ (milieux dememoire) or places where social memory isembedded in daily practices, has paved theway for the proliferation of ‘mnemonic sites’(lieux de memoire), officially designated toserve as a catalyst for collective remembrance.The monumentalised historic hotels examinedin this article may be seen as emerging lieux


M. Peleggi

de memoire, as they make the colonial past –which never was so grand but is experiencedas such by nostalgia-seeking tourists – availableas a stage set for consumption practices and,indeed, as a consumable spectacle in itself.In representing the past in a manner thatis physically tangible and yet anachronistic,monumentalised colonial hotels may appearto function in the same way as other productsof the heritage industry. In fact, they operatein a reversal of the heritage industry’s workingpattern, which tends to transform the use valueof monuments and museums (their being arepository of knowledge and social memory)into economic value through commodification.The monumentalisation of colonial hotels, onthe contrary, transforms – or more preciselyredoubles – economic value into use value atthe same time that it increases marketability by‘restoration’. In this way, commercial premisesare re-invented as historic monuments of sorts,although the civic and educational attributescommonly associated with heritage status mayprove elusive to identify.

Insofar as all nation-states in South-East Asia– except Thailand – have forged their nationalidentities by rejecting colonialism’s legacy, mon-umentalised colonial hotels would be regardedas sites of counter-memory rather than offi-cial memory. There is an apparent incongruityin the fact that such hotels provide historicalgrounds (in the literal sense of the word) forthe celebration of colonialism’s ‘good old days’,even in countries like Myanmar and Vietnam,where the struggle against Western dominationwas bloody and protracted. Still, one shouldnot be surprised if such an incongruity ap-pears far less a concern than the ability to tapinto the high-end segment of the internationaltourism market. In the name of development, thehospitality industry is afforded some leeway withregard to national history, whose official repre-sentation continues to be found in history muse-ums or the mausoleum of a nation’s founding fa-ther, where colonialism receives the bad press itdeserves.

Even though the monumentalisation of South-East Asia’s colonial-era hotels carries thepotential of causing dissonances in the canon-ised ‘national’ heritage, to expect market forcesto bring about the pluralisation of the masternarratives of South-East Asian nations seems a

misplaced hope. This is, first, because of thehotels’ commercial raison d’etre, which placesemphasis on history for its marketing rather thaneducational value. Second, despite the effortsof architects and copy-writers, colonial hotelsdo not seem to occupy a major place in thesocial memory of most South-East Asian urban-ites. Even for Singapore’s Raffles Hotel, despiteits prominence in the nation’s public image, arecent poll indicated that most respondents didnot regard the hotel as a ‘national’ heritage, buta relic of Britain’s vanished colonial power (Ang,2003). It is not surprising that cities and partic-ular sites therein should be imagined, experi-enced and remembered in substantially differ-ent terms according to whether one is a nativeof the place, a long-term resident or a temporaryvisitor. What can be a cause of surprise, and per-haps concern, is the possibility that everybodyin ‘New Asia’ will be one day transformed, asa result of reckless urban development, into atourist – forever mistaking the signs of historyfor its presence.

Acknowledgements

The fieldwork research for this article was sup-ported by a grant (R-110-000-010-112) fromthe Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Na-tional University of Singapore. Thanks to DavidWordsworth, Sally Baughen (The Strand Hotel)and Gretchen Liu (The Raffles Hotel) for infor-mation and promotional material.

Notes

1 The top-tier chain among the Accor group’s properties,Sofitel identifies ‘160 prestigious properties that brings[sic] a unique French “art de vivre” to prime locationsaround the world’, (www.accor.com).

2 Established as early as 1975, SaigonTourist was incorpo-rated in 1999 into the SaigonTourist Holding Co., Viet-nam’s largest tour operator owning 31 tourism industryenterprises.

3 The Strand and the Metropole both publish newslet-ters; the latter is titled and styled typographically afterthe nineteenth century French weekly Le Petit Journal.Glossy magazines are published by Raffles International(Fables) and the Venice-Simplon Orient Express (Orient-Express/Eastern and Oriental Magazine).

4 Besides the Raffles, the Strand, the Majestic and theMetropole, the Legends of Indochina network of ho-tels includes the Oriental (Bangkok), the Hotel LeRoyal (Phnom Penh), the Grand d’Hotel d’Angkor (SiemReap), the Settha Palace (Vientiane) and three resorts in



Thailand, the Regent (Chiangmai), Chiva Som (Hua Hin)and Amanpuri (Phuket).

References

Ang, H. (2003) Historic hotels and modern tourism in Sin-gapore and Vietnam. Honours thesis, Southeast AsianStudies Programme, National University of Singapore.

Auge, M. (1998) Non-places: An anthropology of hyper-modernity (translated by J. Howe). London: Verso.

Augustin, A. (1988) The Raffles treasury. Singapore: TimesBooks International.

Augustin, A. (2001) Hotel Metropole, Hanoi. Vienna:Famoushotels Organization (www.famoushotels.org).

Augustin, A. (2003) The Strand, Yangon. Vienna:Famoushotels Organization (www.famoushotels.org).

Baudrillard, J. (2003) The system of objects (translated by J.Benedict). London: Verso.

Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction (translated by R. Nice).London: Routledge.

Choay, F. (2001) The invention of the historic monument(translated by L.M. O’Connell). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Cohen, E. (1988) Authenticity and commoditization intourism, Annals of Tourism Research 15: 371–386.

Dann, G.M.S. (1994) Travel by train: Keeping nostalgia ontrack, in A.V. Seaton (ed.), Tourism: The state of the art.Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Davis, F. (1979) Yearning for yesterday: A sociology of nos-talgia. New York: Free Press.

Hewison, R. (1987) The heritage industry: Britain in a climateof decline. London: Methuen.

Jennings, E.T. (2003) From Indochine to Indochic: The LangBian/Dalat Palace Hotel and French colonial leisure,power and culture, New Modern Asian Studies 37(1):159–194.

Khoo, S.N. and G. Jenkins (2002) George Town, PulauPinang, Malaysia: Development strategies and com-munity realities, in W.S. Logan (ed.), The disappearing‘Asian’ City: Protecting Asia’s urban heritage in a glob-alizing world. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Kong, L. and B. Yeoh (1994) Urban conservation in Singa-pore: A survey of state policies and popular attitudes,Urban Studies 31(1): 247–265.

Kwok, K. (ed.) (1999) Our place in time: Exploring heritageand memory in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Her-itage Society.

Larkham, P.J. (1996) Conservation and the city. London,New York: Routledge.

Liu, G. (1992) Raffles Hotel. Singapore: Landmark Books.

Logan, W.S. (2002) The Golden Hanoi and heritage protec-tion in Vietnam’s capital: Containing cultural global-ization, in W.S. Logan (ed.), The disappearing ‘Asian’city: Protecting Asia’s urban heritage in a globalizingworld, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: Arrangementsof social space in tourist settings, American Journal ofSociology 79(3): 589–603.

New Straits Times (28 September 1998), Raffleization ofPenang’s Landmark E&O, no page reference.

Nora, P. (1989) Between memory and history: Les lieux dememoire, Representations 26: 7–25.

Panivong, N. (1996) Phantasmatic Indochina: French colo-nial ideology in architecture, film and literature.Durham: Duke University Press.

Peleggi, M. (1996) National heritage and global tourism inThailand, Annals of Tourism Research 23: 432–448.

Tay, K.S. and R.B.H. Goh (2003) Reading the Southeast Asiancity in the context of rapid economic growth, in R.B.H.Goh and B.S.A. Yeoh (eds.), Theorizing the SoutheastAsian city as text. London, Singapore: World Scientific.

Templer, R. (1998) Shadows and wind: A view of modernVietnam. London: Abacus.

The Sydney Morning Herald (12 August 1993) The exoticexpress, no page reference.

Raffles Hotel Sales Kit (undated) mimeograph. Singapore:Raffles Hotel.

Raffles Museum Leaflet (undated). Singapore: Raffles Hotel.Sofitel Metropole Newsletter (2002/2003) Sofitel Metropole

Hanoi recalls the period of Graham Greene, Issue3(December 2002/January 2003): 2.

Tung, A.M. (2001) Preserving the world’s great cities: Thedestruction and renewal of the historic metropolis. NewYork: Clarkson Potter.

Urban Redevelopment Authority (1975) Annual report1974/1975. Singapore: URA.

Useful World Wide Web sites on historichotels in Asia

www.accorhotels.com/asiawww.continental-saigon.comwww.e-o-hotel.comwww.legends-of-indochina.comwww.majesticsaigon.comwww.orient-express.comwww.sofitel-hanoi-vietnam.comwww.famoushotels.org


consuming colonial nostalgia: the monumentalisation of historic hotels in urban south-east asia

Documents