Experiences

of Two UNESCO World Heritage Cities:

National and local politics in branding the past

Shevren LAI

Can-Seng OOI

April 2015

CLCS Working Paper Series

www.serviceresearch.org

Copenhagen Business School

Center for Leisure & Culture Services
Department of International Economics and Management

© 2015 authors
 Experiences of Two UNESCO World Heritage Cities:
National and local politics in branding the past

Shevren LAI & Can‐Seng OOI

Abstract

This paper critically examines the relationship between federal and local‐state level
governments in interpreting and presenting the World Heritage brand at two Malaysian
World Heritage sites, George Town and Melaka. The World Heritage status is
internationally recognised. Although the World Heritage brand offers many advantages
in tourism development and destination marketing, what and how the local heritage is
conserved, interpreted and appreciated remains open. This article shows that the
mechanisms of interpreting and presenting the WH status vary according to the
agendas and needs of authorities. This working paper also shows that material heritage
and heritage stories are highly politicized, and the World Heritage recognition has
inevitably become a tool for further ideological intentions.

Introduction

Heritage accentuates the history of a place and thus also asserts the place’s uniqueness.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World
Heritage scheme recognizes places of valuable and unique heritages. The recognized
sites vary in size and scale, for instance, the Colosseum in Rome is an ancient sporting
arena, Yosemite National Park is a massive nature reserve, and Dubrovnik is a city. This
working paper focuses empirically on two cities – George Town and Melaka – in
Malaysia.

Since the formulation and adoption of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972 by UNESCO, more than 1000 sites are
recognized. An important outcome of the convention is the introduction of the World
Heritage List. Sites listed are from all over the world and possess ´Outstanding Universal
Value` as evaluated by professional heritage experts (World Heritage Convention,
UNESCO 2014). Each ´World Heritage Site’ has a responsibility to conserve and manage
its heritage in ways stipulated in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention (World Heritage Convention, UNESCO 2013). Getting
listed is not easy.

In order to nominate a site into the World Heritage List, the sponsoring country has to
first rectify the Convention and be a member of UNESCO. Adherence to protocol and

1 
 
criteria is essential in the UNESCO accreditation scheme (Hall, 2006). A set of rules
comprises of several stages, beginning with acceptance into the Tentative List. Stages of
document preparations and submission, expert evaluation and inscription are then
‘supervised’ by experts from UNESCO, World Heritage Committee and its agencies (see
World Heritage Information Kit, UNESCO, 2008). The whole process takes years before
an evaluation is completed by the World Heritage Committee. In Malaysia´s cases of
Melaka and George Town, the process began in 1986 and went through many
consultations and preparation processes before final approval by the World Heritage
Committee was given on July 7, 2008.

Despite the difficulties in getting listed, there are many advantages that follow. The
World Heritage (WH) brand opens up many possibilities for sites, especially in tourism
(Hall and Piggin, 2002, 2003). The site will attract more tourists (Buckley, 2004; Huang
et al,2012; Yang et al, 2010), and the recognition will shape tourists’ perceptions and
evaluation of the place (Poria et al, 2011). The status will give new opportunities for
destination marketing (Boyd and Timothy, 2006) and open access to additional markets
(Fyall and Rakic, 2006). Even though the WH status brings global recognition, it does
not necessarily translate into benefits for residents and local development (Ryan and
Silvanto, 2009, 2010). Sites may even choose to desert their WH recognition (e.g see
Ashworth and van der Aa, 2002). Besides achieving tourism goals, the site must also
bring about socioeconomic development for locals. Achieving such goals requires
careful planning (Kaltenborn et al, 2013). As will be discussed later, studies have
concentrated on the evaluation process and on the impact of WH recognition on local
development, there is scant research on the WH recognition as a brand, and how that
brand has become part of national political posturing. Such political posturing affects
local communities and transmits particular ideological messages behind the heritage,
something the Convention does not address, and place branding scholars have largely
ignored.

The outline of this paper is as following: After this introduction is a review of knowledge
on world heritage branding. A short methodological note follows suit. The cases of
George Town and Melaka will be presented, followed by the analysis and conclusions.

World Heritage branding in context

To be recognized as a WH site has many advantages. First, a WH site has a globally

recognized accreditation that stands out against places without the recognition. It
brands the place (Ooi, 2011, 2014). Implicitly, second, a WH brand indicates intrinsic
value that should be preserved, and thus suggests special values, exclusivity and
distinction (Hall and Piggin, 2003; Ryan and Silvanto, 2009, 2010). Third, the WH title
cannot be developed nor created by marketing experts as it is evaluated and awarded
by UNESCO; it means the heritage site is authentic and not just a commercial and
marketing gimmick. This however does not mean that site and place branding
authorities do not involve in enhancing and promoting the site (Klijn et al, 2012;

2 
 
Westwood, 2011). Furthermore fourth, visitors to WH sites are found to be better
acquainted with cultural and symbolic products and are also higher yielding tourists
(Shackley, 1998).

Within the field of tourism development, a range of literature has shown that spatial
changes, commodification of material and immaterial heritage, recreation and
reproduction of local histories often come with the reification and maintenance of the
WH title (Dearborn and Stallmeyer, 2009; Heldt‐Cassel and Pashkevich, 2011; Tucker
and Emge, 2010; Yasuda, 2010). Maintaining and using the WH brand needs
coordination and management, like in all other place branding projects. It entails a
flexible approach of adopting, adapting, modifying, revising, and adjusting policies,
strategies, techniques and programmes (Hankinson, 2004; Jetter and Chen, 2011; Kemp
et al, 2012). It is eventually a ´strategic lens, a decision‐making tool´ (Allen, 2007, p:61).
In the circumstances of WH branding, the complex and difficult task arises from several
areas.

One, cases have shown that the designation of the WH status does not conclusively
translate into a coherent brand and brand message for the heritage site (Hazen, 2008;
Huang et al, 2012). Residents, visitors and the global public do not necessarily know and
understand the basis behind the WH status. Like other many cultural tourism products,
the knowledge and information has to be packaged and communicated to residents and
global audiences (Ooi, 2002).

Two, the process of attaining the WH recognition is often distant from residents’
experiences (Buckley, 2004; Poria et al, 2011). The processes of applying for the WH
recognition need formal institutional support and a great deal of planning but not
extensive communication with locals on potential negative impacts (Chakravarty and
Irazábal, 2011). Local support is important to get the WH recognition, and the
consultation process is often open and positive but not frank and critical. A
misalignment of residents’ expectations and the eventual outcomes may result.

Three, different groups of people have different agendas and views. For instance, the
WH recognition can draw attention but the site has to be conserved, improved and
promoted to draw attention. The attractiveness of the place must be accompanied by
increased accessibility, better facilities, clearly espoused stories on the historical and
cultural significance of the site. For instance in India, Agra Fort and Fatehpur Sikri did
relatively poorly in these issues (see Chakravarty and Irazábal, 2011) as compared to
Luang Prabang (see Starin 2008). A WH status becomes invisible without
communication and marketing (de Chernatony and McDonald,1998, p:20).
Commercialization then becomes a staple issue in WH sites. So for example, local
residents may have developed emotional ties and have personal stories of a site that
branding authorities, foreign tourists and businesses may not appreciate. Tourists gazes
and experiences are often considered shallow by locals, and draw derogatory local
responses. Like all place brands, a WH stamp of approval can be interpreted differently

3 
 
by diverse audiences (Harisson, 2004; Ooi, 2014; Smith, 2011). What is promoted and
celebrated can and will always be criticized by different parties.

Following that there will always be contested views and interpretations of the site.
Four, debates on heritage inadvertently arise on the period of history to showcase, what
physical heritage to conserve and how should new amenities, facilities, structures and
interpretations be incorporated (Aas et al, 2005; Ooi, 2001; Winter, 2007). These
choices reflect ideological structures. The universal values of WH sites are thus also
politically embedded and should always be critically evaluated. This is often not done in
practice and in scholarship.

Underlying the points of contention raised above, the consensus is that the key to
successful WH site management, place branding and tourism development rests on the
joint‐involvement of multiple stakeholder groups (Buncle, 2011; Day, 2011; Kavaratzis,
2012; Konecnik‐Ruzzier and Petek, 2012). This position stems from Stakeholder Theory
(Freeman, 1984). Using the organization as the unit of analysis, Freeman (1984)
suggests that an organisation is characterised by its relationship with various groups
and individuals outside the organization that can affect and be affected by the
achievement of the organisation’s objectives (Freeman, 1984, p:46). As already
highlighted, managing stakeholder relations in a WH site project is much easier said
than done. The challenges are essentially fourfold. First, stakeholder identification is not
an easy process as many groups do not necessarily demonstrate any interests until
when they are affected (e.g see Garrod et al, 2012; García et al, 2012). Furthermore it is
difficult to define a stakeholder group, as for instance, local residents would consist of
different groups with overlapping and conflicting interests. So, second, tensions often
arise when discussions among stakeholders take place, as they have different interests
that prevent them from collaborating closer in place branding projects (Ooi and
Pedersen, 2010). Third, building consensus on branding is time consuming and requires
resources. These two factors may prevent stakeholders from agreeing to proposed ideas
if they do not gain equal benefits from the branding activities (Ooi, 2012). Fourth,
negotiation between leadership and decision making among stakeholders is another
issue. To be inclusive is an objective when consulting different stakeholder groups but
not everyone is willing to lead or those in position often want to have the final say
(Allen, 2007; Budeanu, 2009).

This paper addresses a number of these issues in the context of George Town and
Melaka. The mechanism of interpreting and presenting the WH status vary according to
the needs of the designated sites and visions of the authorities (Millar, 2006). The two
cases will accentuate the politics behind two major stakeholder groups, namely the
Malaysian federal government and the local state‐level governments. They will also
highlight the stakeholder management challenges and inform how material heritage
and heritage stories are politicized within established ideological structures.

4 
 
Introduction to George Town, Melaka and Malaysia’s cultural‐political economy

George Town and Melaka are lively cities. Because of their locations along the Straits of
Malacca (Melaka), both are historic maritime ports albeit their maritime importance has
dwindled over the decades.

Map of Malaysia: George Town and Melaka are on the

west coast of Peninsular Malaysia

The name ‘Melaka’ is often used interchangeably between Melaka‐the‐historic‐city and

the state of Melaka in public. A clear distinction is not necessary in this paper, as the
context of usage will indicate if the historic city or the state is referred to when ‘Melaka’
is used. It is the historic city of Melaka that has been bestowed with the WH status, and
this old city was once the maritime centre of the Malay Archipelagos and attracted
traders from Asia and Europe. Its economic and geographical importance is clear in its
colonial past. It was colonized by the Portuguese in 1511 (for 130 years), followed by
the Dutch for 154 years from 1641. The British took over in 1824 (Wee, 2009).
Malaysia, where Melaka is part of today, became independent in 1957.

Competing colonial powers in the past has also shaped George Town. George Town is
the capital of the state of Penang, and in public perception, talking about Penang often
means George Town. It is where the state was founded. The official history of George
Town started with British Captain Francis Light’s acquisition of Penang Island in 1786
for the establishment of a base for the English East India Company (see Turnbill, 2009).
In 1824, Penang, together with Melaka and Singapore formed the British’s Straits
Settlements, effectively allowing the British to control the strategic Straits of Malacca
(Webster, 2010).

5 
 
Melaka and George Town were thus confluences for economic, social and cultural
exchanges. They are now multi‐cultural cities, as are evidently clear in their heritages,
ranging from their mix of buildings to the blending of food kitchens, the cacophony of
local vernaculars to the co‐existence of different religions (Zawawi, 2004). It is against
this rich backdrop of Asian and Europeans influences that both cities are formally
recognized as World Heritage Sites in 2008 (World Heritage Committee, 2008):

1. Exhibit an excellent example of historic colonial town on the Straits of

Malacca that have endured and experienced a succession of historical
events.
2. The most complete surviving historic cities on the Straits of Malacca with
a multi‐cultural living heritage
3. A living testimony to the multi‐cultural heritage and tradition of Asia,
where the greatest religions and cultures met.

The WH designation offers opportunities and challenges for these two cities. One of the
first tasks is to make linkages between their new recognitions and their established
tourism destination brands and images. The authorities in Penang and Melaka have to
leverage the newly gained WH statuses and their destinations’ existing brands and
images. This is easier said than done because expectedly, the different stakeholders –
including residents, local businesses, local authorities, federal government bodies,
various tourism businesses and bickering politicians – have diverse and contradictory
agendas. The relationships between the federal and state/local governments are the
focus here. In contrast to Melaka, Penang is run by the opposition coalition at the state
and local levels since 2008, the same year George Town became a WH city. The
antagonistic federal‐local government relations in Penang resulted in contrasting WH
management strategies against that of Melaka’s.

Setting the context, Malaysia consists of 13 federal states. The national government,
state governments and local public agencies are major players in conserving heritage
and tourism development in the country. The 1957 Malaysia Federal Constitution
mandated the Malaysia governmental administration into three tiers: federal, state and
local. Federal control over state affairs is entrenched in the National Council for Local
Government (NCLG) in 1960 and Local Government Act 1976, among others (Loh, 2010;
Morrison, 1994, cited in Phang, 2008). These restrict the involvement of local
authorities in many local areas because of the top‐down distribution of power through
public institutions (Azizan, 2008). As will be discussed soon, this is reflected in the
diverse ways state authorities in Penang and Melaka interpret their World Heritage
titles.

Even before Penang elected the opposition into the state government, the local
authorities have been revitalising the island‐state’s urban landscape, with the aim of
becoming an international manufacturing hub and an attractive tourism destination.
National economic policies such as the New Economic Policy (1970‐1990), the New

6 
 
Development Policy (1990 ‐2000), and Vision 2020 have shaped Penang and the island‐
state’s branding strategies (see Teo, 2003). Economic development and cultural
preservation do not necessarily go hand‐in‐hand. Heritage buildings were cursorily
replaced by new ones in realizing the prevailing economic development plans.
Conservation‐related legislations and policies are put in place but eventual heritage
conservation plans are predominantly selective and unsystematic (Jenkins and King,
2003). Many local people even objected heritage conservation because it is perceived to
slow down economic development (Teo, 2003). The lack of appreciation by the state
government and local people in heritage conservation even resulted in George Town
being listed in the World Monument Watch 100 Most Endangered Sites in 2000 and
2002 (Nasution, 2008). Eventually, efforts were directed at conserving the rich heritage
of George Town, with the aim making the city more liveable and attractive for
investments and tourism.

In contrast, Melaka has a different experience. The state government´s interest in

tourism started in the early 1980s (Ismail and Baum, 2006). The idea is to transform
Melaka into a tourism destination by concentrating on improving accessibility, and
connecting the towns in the north of the country to Malaysia’s southern neighbour,
Singapore (Ismail and Baum, 2006). Tourism is targeted as the main economic driver of
the state. And to improve the city’s image, Melaka State has formulated several urban
planning strategies. A number of prominent agencies are part of the project, including
the Melaka Museums Corporation (PERZIM), Melaka Historic City Council (MBMB), the
Melaka State Town and Country Planning Department (JPBD) and the Chief Minister
Office. Melaka City was to be transformed via ´museulogical methods´ (Kirshenblatt‐
Gimblett, 2006). New urban planning and renewal efforts are to enhance the image of
this historic Malaysian city (Cartier, 1998, 2001). In this process, old quarters were
refurbished with new urban design ideas. Streets were renamed to bring about the
mystic and historic elements of the city, for example, the Street of Hang Jebat (named
after a legendary 15th Century palace guard who rebelled against the Melaka Sultan
because of injustice) and Tan Cheng Lock (founder of the Malaysia Chinese Association,
a prominent Chinese Malaysian politician who played an important role in negotiating
for the independence of the country from the British in the 1950s).

Before 2008, Melaka City has already revitalised itself into a historical city adorned with
modern infrastructure and public amenities. The city was also zoned and ‘themed’, such
as the heritage city, garden city and friendly city. There is a concerted effort in bringing
colonial historical buildings into the approved local historic narratives in the re‐
imagining of Melaka as a tourist destination (see Melaka City Image, 2003). Regardless,
the Melaka City revitalization process largely supports the national Malay‐centric
Malaysian identity social engineering project (Worden, 2003, p: 31). The Malay ethnic
group in Malaysia has a special status and Malays are privileged in economic and
political spheres in the country. The other two main ethnic groups ‐ Chinese and Indians
‐ are deliberately marginalized.

7 
 
As mentioned, there was a twist of fate for heritage conservation in March 2008 after
the country’s general elections and when the cities received their WH statuses. Penang
voted in the opposition, and the state government has since been run by the opposition
coalition. And cooperation between federal and state governments in Penang became
uneven and bumpy. Melaka remained under the control of the ruling coalition, and it
was ‘business as usual’. Federal support for the Melaka State continued, and the
narratives behind the branding of the historic city continued as before. The federal
government has since limited its cooperation with Penang and resulted in the
cancellation of collaboration between federal and state´s agencies in tourism (The Star
online, 3 April, 2008). Federal funds for development were not channelled through the
state‐level administrative system. The Penang state government and Penangites
(residents of Penang) were compelled not only to find new ways of revitalizing their
island‐state’s economic fortunes, they wanted to demonstrate that they could govern
better and they listen more to residents and local civil society. As a result, the branding
of George Town and its heritage takes on a different path from Melaka’s. The differences
will be discussed next.

Branding George Town and Melaka as World Heritage Cities

In any place branding programme, a clear mission and vision is necessary (Hankinson,
2007). George Town and Melaka are no different but their execution of the branding
missions is complicated and convoluted. Like in many other cities, George Town and
Melaka have a number of city branding initiatives. Politicians and branding authorities
often sound positive and encouraging through their official visions and missions. The
WH statuses of these cities are central and have come to dominate various branding
initiatives of these cities.

For George Town, it is the capital of Penang and takes the lead in making the island‐
state into an internationally‐recognized developed and highly liveable place. The Chief
Minister of Penang in October 2009 outlined three objectives for Penang: One, a location
of choice for investors; two, a destination of choice for tourists; and three, a habitat of
choice for sustainable living (Lim, 2009). These three aims are the so‐called ‘3Es’
people‐centric mission: Enable, Empower and Enrich. The 3Es mean that people are
given equal opportunities, regardless of their ethnicity, social class, political alliance or
religion. Such an explicit statement on equality to all ethnic groups contrasts against the
national policy of privileging the Malays. The opposition state government accentuates
Penang as different from parts of Malaysia run by the ruling coalition. To the politicians,
the WH recognition is an international acknowledgement that George Town has a long
and glorious history of multi‐ethnic interaction.

The economic development plan of Melaka state has largely concentrated on tourism.
Since the 1980s, the authorities have promoted Melaka as a destination with a rich
cultural heritage. Nonetheless, the state government has also introduced a vision to
transform Melaka State into a modern and progressive city‐state by year 2020. The

8 
 
mission supposedly bore fruit when in October 2010, the Malaysia Prime Minister said
that Melaka is a “developed state” (Sin Chew Jit Poh, 21 October 2010). Along this
trajectory, the authorities are visualising Melaka as a world‐class and sustainable city‐
state, driven economically by tourism. With the Melaka´s WH status, the authorities
continue to celebrate a preserved past. But a number of tensions arise: conservation of
material heritage versus new material heritage; top‐down and bottom‐up visions; local
versus international recognition.

Planning and buildings

The tension between the federal and state governments in George Town is expectedly
fierce. That is not the case in Melaka. The Melaka conservation programmes are run
under the care of the Melaka Chief Minister Office. For George Town, the federal
government established a company in December 2009 to shape and influence heritage
conservation in the city. Instead of working with the Penang state authorities, the
company – Think City – was given federal grants for conservation as outlined in the
2009 Malaysia annual budget report (Badawi, 2009). Think City and the Penang State
authorities however have the common interest of revitalizing the built heritage because
the WH recognition is indeed a boon for Penang and also for the country as a whole. An
antagonistic relationship between the federal and state‐level governments is not
fruitful. But still with the support of Think City and its George Town Grants Programme
(GTGP), a federal urban regeneration programme, the Penang government carried out
conservation programme for 10% of the 4,000 heritage buildings in the city in 2011
(Ooi et al, Penang Monthly, February 2011, p: 12).

Indirectly, the WH recognition brings about opportunity for Penang state. The main
objective of GTGP is to educate, encourage and involve local people, government
agencies and private sector to sustain the city´s WH status and to transform the city into
an international liveable city. It seems that through Think City, the federal and state
governments learned to work together. The national Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006‐2010)
and Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011‐2015) prioritize city development with the goal of
enhancing economic prosperity and quality of life for residents. George Town and
surrounding cities were and are incorporated into the national strategies. Hence, for the
federal agencies, cooperating closely with state‐level governments is necessary to
realise the plans and vice versa.

The GTGP aims to make George Town into a more vibrant city that attracts tourists,
investors and domestic migrants. Learning from other cities such as Paris, Shanghai,
Singapore and Hong Kong, George Town is to incorporate conservation principles with
cultural production and heritage creation in the bid to showcase its traditions and its
contemporary cultural importance. So, as part of the plan, material heritage
conservation is central. Dilapidated built heritage is restored. The building façades
reflect their former glory although the buildings behind are literally rebuilt. These
heritage buildings have also found new uses, such as being turned into restaurants,

9 
 
souvenir shops and designer boutiques. Cultural and arts related businesses are
considered particularly relevant for such restored spaces (Capel, Penang Monthly, 17
June 2013).

The restored buildings do not stand in a spatial vacuum. Strategies are devised to affirm
a healthy, green and sustainable image for George Town. These include greening
projects along the main streets. Fancy street lightings, standardized signage, colourful
pathways, and new facilities and amenities to serve the public need are introduced.

Efforts are also spent on educating residents on maintaining and treating their
surrounding environment well. Besides the beautification and illumination projects,
cooperation from residents and visitors is considered necessary to maintain the
physical environment and to live up to the hard‐fought WH status. As a WH city, George
Town is to `reflect a new social order’ (Negrete, 2009, p:35), as advocated by a
government‐supported research report Positioning Penang (Kharas et al, 2010). George
Town will be the nucleus of urban aesthetics, with highly liveable conditions that drives
economic development, retain local population and attract international talents. The
WH status is interpreted liberally.

Criticisms of the plans in Penang are however also plentiful. In the Penang Forum, a
coalition of civil society groups, a dominant gripe is the appropriation of ´people centric
development´ by big corporations and developers. Residents observe that more high‐
rises, shopping complexes, commercial offices and infrastructure are constructed but
they cater mainly to the wealthy (Lim, Penang Forum 5, 2012 ; Lim et al, Penang
Monthly, 2013). Uneven conservation of the city is another criticism of the state
government; incidents are highlighted where heritage buildings beyond the inner city
were neglected, defeating the idea of creating a socially inclusive and sustainable city
(Lim, Penang Forum 5, 2012). Penang has a strong civil society which constantly
criticizes the state government and agencies. This is partly contributed to the time of
the British; as an international hub for trade, local people have come to adopt a more
global outlook and also learned to vocally address local issues (Loh, 2009). Also during
the colonial period, Malay and Chinese secret societies rule local politics and had control
over a large swath of the economy (see Tan, 2009). Just as importantly, local civil
society supported the state government in the past two general elections, and has been
emboldened.

The case is quite different in Melaka. A senior officer in his 40s from a Melaka state
agency observed (personal communication):

Penang people are more vocal than [in Melaka]. They dare to protest. We
[in Melaka] are more worried with what will happen if we oppose
government projects.

Like George Town, Melaka follows a broad strategy. Melaka however has a steady and
established relationship with the federal government because the state‐government is

10 
 
also run by the ruling coalition. The task of presenting and branding the historic city
rests upon the Melaka World Heritage Office, MBMB and JPBD, all of which are under
the Melaka Chief Minister Office. After the WH recognition, the authorities in Melaka
decided to update the city’s brand image, by incorporating a wider range of images,
including one that says Melaka is modern, exciting, fun, adventurous and sustainable.
This moves away from the past branding strategy of highlighting only the glorious
history of the Malay Sultanate; Melaka is considered the founding spot of Malaysia.

The inner city was renovated and refurbished over the years according to series of
urban design policies. The latest plan is for the maintenance and upgrading works in the
city, with financial support from federal grants. But the support can still be distributed
in a bipartisan manner. After the general election in May 2013, the authorities decided
to close the refurbished Friday to Sunday night market in the city’s main thoroughfare,
Jonker Street. This decision is primarily considered political. Night market traders in
Jonker Street were predominantly Chinese and the government seemed determined to
punish Chinese voters for not supporting the ruling coalition (see Shukry,
freemalaysiatoday, 26 June 2013). The former Melaka´s Chief Minister lost his seat in the
2013 elections and has blamed the Chinese voters (The Malaymail online, 15 May 2013).

And although the state‐level and federal governments belong to the ruling coalition,
there are also challenges in coordinating the conservation efforts. Due to the many
government agencies involved in the activities, there are misunderstandings and
disagreements on prioritization and management of resources for heritage
conservation. There are also overlapping responsibilities among public agencies, and a
lack of single leadership behind the development process. A senior officer from a state
agency responsible in heritage conservation said (personal communication):

It is always difficult to have a common say. There are too many agencies,
each has its own idea and nobody wants to take the lead. Everyone is just
waiting for somebody to propose projects, and the ideas ended up in the
filing system.

Sections of the public are also disillusioned with the bureaucratic process and the
seeming imprudent ways of spending on government sponsored projects. A Melaka tour
operator who is in the business for more than 30 years lamented (personal
communication):

The government just spend and spend. The Chief Minister thinks that
money is easy to get. He does not know the government has no money.
Government agencies are always taking things for granted

Melaka is often considered more touristified than George Town in its conservation
efforts. The government is less enthusiastic in diversifying the state’s economy from
tourism. And as a tourist destination, Melaka is to be a Mecca for consumption and
pleasures. Thus, the branding strategies are rendered into several packages according

11 
 
to tourist areas and products. The urban renewal strategy involves real estate
developers, big corporations and international urban planners without highly audible
protests from local people; a petty trader in his 70s voiced his resignation:

The government is strong. We cannot say much and nobody will listen.
But (the development) is good for tourism. The tourists like it.

With images of Las Vegas, developers and planners campaign for expensive and
adventurous projects. For instance, Porto Historia, a huge US$ 29 million commercial
complex facing the Melaka River was built for showcasing local cultural crafts. It is a
joint venture between a state government´s company and the private sector (The Star
online, 20 November 2012). Melaka accentuates the impression of being grandiose,
expensive, modern and yet historical for three purposes. One, it is assumed what
tourists want. Two, it celebrates the Malay history, as part of the national social
engineering programme. Three, the authorities can afford them with full federal
support.

Even though George Town and Melaka have similar urban regeneration strategies, what
is preserved, what is accentuated and what messages the physical landscape
communicate are different. George Town takes a more global outlook. Its WH status is
used as a stepping stone towards building a more diversified economy, and without the
aim of communicating the national version of history. Melaka is modernizing but the
purpose is still to attract tourists, to showcase the Malay founding of the nation, and to
assert the primacy of Malay heritage. Melaka seems to have become a cultural theme
park, with a particular past frozen and a city created largely for tourist consumption.
Regardless, even though relations between federal and state governments in Malaysia
are smoother than in Penang, there are still diverse and vested interests within the
system.

Heritage stories from top and bottom

While physical heritage can be conserved and enhanced, histories can be reformulated
and revised. And as a heritage site evolves, new stories are added. Presenting coherent
brand stories for George Town and Melaka is a challenge even though their WH statuses
focus minds of various stakeholders.

In Penang, as already alluded above, the situation is complicated by the federal and
state‐level government contrasting agendas. The development and management of the
branding of George Town is under the purview of the Penang Global Tourism (PGT), an
agency established in 2010 by the Penang sate‐government. PGT as a local tourism
promotion bureau is expected to support Tourism Malaysia (the national tourism
marketing agency) but Tourism Malaysia is ‘reluctant’ to promote an international
image for the city. The national agency has its own set of narratives for Penang. PGT
wants to celebrate the local multi‐cultural heritage in its branding efforts and it should

12 
 
be more than just ´a tropical island with white sand´ (Teo, 2003, pp:555‐556). So for
instance, local residents and associations were asked to suggest and nominate their own
cultural events to be included in the state´s tourism calendar. The first step taken to
promote Penang´s multicultural stories started in May 2011. It takes the WH status
forward. The ´My Penang, My Experience´ campaign was launched in Singapore (Chua,
Penang Economic Monthly, July 2011). Through this campaign, internationally‐oriented
and local stories were presented, including Jimmy Choo, a successful international shoe
designer from Penang, and George Town as an authentic and living WH city.

This more bottom‐up attempt is an expression of the opposition to the national

government. The Penang state government engages local civil society, which largely
supported it in the elections. Tourism Malaysia is perceived as having a top‐down
formulaic way of promoting Malaysian cultures and heritage. The national top‐down
version of history glorifies a Malay past and highlights the achievements of the ruling
coalition, as articulated in Melaka.

Melaka’s brand narrative is ´Melawat Melaka Bersejarah bererti melawat Malaysia’, or

loosely translated as ´visiting Melaka is equivalent to visiting Malaysia´. The official
iconic tourist experience will be the Melaka River cruise (Melaka Street Map, 2011):

Visiting Historic City of Melaka is not complete without taking forty‐five

minutes cruise down the historic Melaka River

The boat ride tells a particular multi‐cultural story of Malaysia. The official images of
Malaysia are presented on the walls of old buildings by the banks. The diversity of
Malaysia is presented through paintings of tropical flowers, local foods and Malaysians
in different ethnic costumes. This celebrates a non‐political and tolerant multi‐
culturalism.

This modern presentation of Melaka contrasts against the presence of some original
tangible heritage in the city. The Portuguese ruled Melaka for 130 years, and the
remnants of the walls of St Paul Church are visible reminders of this past. Outside the
ruins, a white marble statue of St. Francis Xavier, a Catholic priest who manned the
church in 1545 till his death in 1553, stands tall (Wee, 2009). Also, the remains of the
front gate of the fortress ‘Porta De Santiago’, built in 1512 by General Alfonso d’
Albuquerque to protect the Portuguese colony, has become a tourist icon for the city.
Such heritage sites sit uncomfortably with the authorities because they are reminders of
a colonial past and indicate a strong previous presence of Christianity in the now‐
Muslim country. Regardless, such remnants are central in recognizing Melaka as a
UNESCO World Heritage Site.

A response to the highly visible Portuguese past is to dilute its presence by asserting
other histories. The St Paul Hill Civic Area where the fort and church reside, and is part
of the designated world heritage site has been transformed into an area with numerous
museums. Colonial architectural buildings acquire new uses and meanings. For instance,
13 
 
the Stadthuys building, the former Dutch town hall is now the Museum of History and
Ethnography, which showcases the history of pre‐Malay Sultanate of Melaka to the
present; the emphasis however is on the injustice and cruelty of colonialism and the
glory of an independent Malaysia. The building itself is reduced to a shell telling
officially sanctioned stories of the present regime (See Picture).

Picture: A banner honoring the Malaysian Prime Minister and his government
in one of the museums in Melaka.

Emerging local stories and getting local involvement is sporadic in the branding of the
WH city. The WH brand and story is weaved around the official narrative of the country.
A tour guide in his 50s, who now works in Penang but has extensive experiences in
working in Melaka said (personal communication):

Melaka is different from Penang. You can see they purposely put up stories
on the glories of Melaka and the Malay Sultanate. As a licensed guide, I have
to tell my tourists (often foreigners) about Melaka and this is what Tourism
Malaysia wants me to promote.

The Malay‐slanted story is also observed by Sarkissian (1998). She observed that
official cultural shows always feature pseudo presentations of other ethnic groups
which distort the significance of their cultural practices and histories. The WH
recognition does not dictate how heritage is eventually presented, and its veracity is
defined by the powers‐that‐be.

14 
 
Lessons and conclusions

Both George Town and Melaka are branded as World Heritage cities. Pursuing and
attaining the WH status is an accreditation strategy in place branding (Ooi, 2011, 2014).
The WH accreditation supposedly provides international and independent recognition
of the place. Such an international recognition is flattering but the two cities in this
study show that the interpretation, reification and maintenance of this status can go in
divergent ways. There are lessons.

First, the WH brand is a focal point for politicians, public agencies and local
communities. It is also a brand and resource for branding a city. But that resource is
open, as history is revised. Furthermore, a WH city is also a ‘living’ space that develops
and modernizes. How that should be done is up for discussion and debate. How should
the WH brand and status remain authentic? The answer lies partly in the politics of the
place.

So second, in reifying the WH brand and status, sections of local communities are
worried about the uneven distribution of benefits and welfare. This is a salient issue in
the literature. In both George Town and Melaka, for instance, big business and real
estate developers have drawn the irk of local residents. UNESCO as the accreditation
body has stated that the good that comes out of the recognition should be given to local
communities. Unfortunately the cases of Malaysia show that means very little in
measurement and enforcement. This is an institutional and systemic problem. And the
danger is that the WH brand may become hollow and meaningless.

Third, the WH brand is used by politicians and officers as a rallying call, and that can
also be the case for civil society. Local protests and laments in Melaka and George Town
have adopted the narratives around their cities’ WH statuses to seek more social equity
for all. In this manner, the WH narrative enlivens the political discussion in local places
on how communities should develop and emerge.

Finally, while this study highlights the relationships between federal and state‐level
governments, stakeholder relations are always sources of contention. Even in Melaka,
conflicting agendas surface under a strong federal top‐down mechanism. The branding
of WH sites, like in other place branding projects, will always be messy and contentious.

REFERENCES

Aas, C., Ladkin, A. and Fletcher, J. (2005) Stakeholder collaboration and heritage
management. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (1):28–48.
Allen, G. (2010) Place branding: New tools for economic development. Design
Management Review 18 (2):60–68.
Anholt, S. (2010) Definitions of place branding – Working towards a resolution. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy 6 (1):1–10.

15 
 
Ashworth, G.J. and van der Aa, B.J.M. (2002) Bamyan: Whose heritage was it and what
should we do about it? Current Issues in Tourism 5 (5): 447–457.
Azizan, M. (2008) Decision making and community participation : A case study of the
tourism industry in Langkawi. Tourism 56 (3): 227–241.
Badawi, A.A. (2009) Rang Undang‐undang Perbekalan. 29 August,
http://www.treasury.gov.my/pdf/bajet/ucapan/ub09.pdf, accessed 15 March
2014.
Boyd, S.W. and Timothy, D.J. (2006) Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites. In: A.
Leask and and A. Fyall (eds.) Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd,
pp. 55–68.
Buckley, R. (2004) The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian
National Parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12 (1):70–84.
Budeanu, A. (2009) Environmental supply chain management in tourism: The case of
large tour operators. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (16):1385–1392.
Buncle, T. (2011) Branding, stakeholders and integration: Namibia. In: N. Morgan, A.
Pritchard and R. Pride (eds.) Destination Brands. Oxford: Butterworth‐
Heinemann, pp. 251–268.
Capel, E. (2013) The promise George Town ’ s back lanes hold. Penang Monthly, 17 June,
http://penangmonthly.com/the‐promise‐of‐george‐towns‐back‐lanes‐hold/,
accessed 4 April 2014.
Cartier, C. (2001) Imaging Melaka´s global heritage. In: K.C. Teo, P. Chang and T.C. Ho
(eds.) Interconnected Worlds, Tourism in Southeast Asia. UK: Elsevier Science Ltd,
pp. 193–212.
Cartier, C. (1998) Megadevelopment in Malaysia: From heritage landscapes to
``leisurescapes`` in Melaka´s tourism sector. Singapore Journal of Tropical
Geography 19 (2):151–176.
Chakravarty, S. and Irazábal, C. (2011) Golden geese or white elephants? The paradoxes
of World Heritage Sites and community‐based tourism development in Agra,
India. Community Development 42 (3):359–376.
Chua, R. (2011) What´s your Penang. Penang Economic Monthly, Issue 7, July, pp.34–35.
Day, J. (2011) Branding, destination image and positioning : San Antonio. In: N. Morgan,
A. Pritchard and R. Pride (eds.) Destination Brands. Oxford: Butterworth‐
Heinemann, pp. 269–290.
Dearborn, L.M. and Stallmeyer, J.C. (2009) Re‐visiting Luang Prabang: Transformations
under the influence of World Heritage designation. Journal of Tourism and
Cultural Change 7 (4): 247–269.
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer,
Service and Industrial Market. Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann.
Federal Department of Town and Country Planning (2003) Melaka City Image.
http://issuu.com/anwar_townplan/docs/melaka_coffee_table, accessed 30
March 2014.
Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Fyall, A. and Rakic, T. (2006) The future market for World Heritage Sites. In: A. Leask
and A. Fyall (eds.) Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, pp. 159–
175.
García, J. A., Gómez, M. and Molina, A. (2012) A destination‐branding model: An
empirical analysis based on stakeholders. Tourism Management 33 (3): 646–
661.

16 
 
Garrod, B., Fyall, A., Leask, A. and Reid, E. (2012) Engaging residents as stakeholders of
the visitor attraction.Tourism Management 33 (5): 1159–1173.
Government of Malaysia (2006) Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006‐2010. Putrajaya, Malaysia:
The Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister´s Department.
Government of Malaysia (2010) Tenth Malaysia Plam 2011‐2015. Putrajaya, Malaysia:
The Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister´s Department.
Hall, C.M. (2006) Implementing the World Heritage Convention: What happens after
listing? In: A. Leask and A. Fyall (eds.) Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford:
Elsevier Ltd, pp. 20–36.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2002) Tourism business knowledge of World Heritage sites: a
New Zealand case study. International Journal of Tourism Research 4 (5): 401–
411.
Hampton, M.P. (2005) Heritage, local communities and economic development. Annals
of Tourism Research 32 (3):735–759.
Hamzah, A. and Noor, H.R. (2006) Is historic Melaka ready for World Heritage listing.
Malaysia TownPlan 3 (1): 5–18.
Hankinson, G. (2009) Managing destination brands: establishing a theoretical
foundation. Journal of Marketing Management 25 (1‐2): 97–115.
Hankinson, G. (2007) The management of destination brands: Five guiding principles
based on recent developments in corporate branding theory. Journal of Brand
Management 14 (3): 240–254.
Hanna, S. and Rowley, J. (2013) A practitioner‐led strategic place brand‐management
model. Journal of Marketing Management 29 (15‐16): 1782–1815.
Hanna, S. and Rowley, J. (2012) Practitioners views on the essence of place brand
management. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 8 (2): 102–109.
Harrison, D. (2004) Introduction : Contested narratives in the domain of World
Heritage. Current Issues in Tourism 77 (4‐5): 281–290.
Hazen, H. (2008) “Of Outstanding Universal Value”: The challenge of scale in applying
the World Heritage Convention at national parks in the US. Geoforum 39 (1):
252–264.
Heldt Cassel, S. and Pashkevich, A. (2011) Heritage tourism and inherited institutional
structures: The case of Falun Great Copper Mountain. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism 11 (1): 54–75.
Huang, C.‐H., Tsaur, J.‐R. and Yang, C.‐H. (2012) Does world heritage list really induce
more tourists? Evidence from Macau. Tourism Management 33 (6): 1450–1457.
Ismail, H. and Baum, T. (2006) Urban Tourism in Developing Countries: in the Case of
Melaka (Malacca) City, Malaysia. Anatolia 17 (2): 211–233.
Jenkins, G. and King, V.T. (2003) Heritage and development in a Malaysian city: George
Town under threat? Indonesia and the Malay World 31 (89): 44–57.
Jetter, L.G. and Chen, R.J.C. (2011) Destination branding and images: Perceptions and
practices from tourism industry professionals. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration 12 (2):174–187.
Kaltenborn, B.P., Thomassen, J., Wold, L.C., Linnell, J.D.C. and Skar, B. (2013) World
Heritage status as a foundation for building local futures? A case study from Vega
in Central Norway. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21 (1): 99–116.
Kavaratzis, M. (2007) City Marketing: The past, the present and some unresolved issues.
Geography Compass 1(3): 695–712.
Kavaratzis, M. (2012) From “necessary evil” to necessity: stakeholders’ involvement in
place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development 5 (1): 7–19.

17 
 
Kemp, E., Childers, C.Y. and Williams, K.H. (2012) A tale of a musical city: Fostering self‐
brand connection among residents of Austin, Texas. Place Branding and Public
Diplomacy 8 (2): 147–157.
Kharas, H., Zeufack, A. and Majeed, H. (2010) Cities , People & the Economy: A study on
Positioning Penang. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Khazanah National Berhad.
Kirshenblatt‐Gimblett, B. (2006) World Heritage and cultural economies. In: J. Karp, J.
C.A. Kratz, L. Szwaja, T. Tbavra‐Frausto, G. Buntinx, B. Kirhenblatt‐Gimblett, and
C. Rassool (eds.). Museum Fictions: Public Cultures/Global Transformations. USA:
Duke University Press, pp. 161–202.
Klijn, E., Eshuis, J. and Braun, E. (2012) The influence of stakeholder involvement on the
effectiveness of place branding. Public Management Review 14 (4): 499–519.
Konecnik Ruzzier, M. and Petek, N. (2012) The importance of diverse stakeholders in
place branding : The case of “ I feel Slovenia .” Anatolia : An International Journal
of Tourism and Hospitality Research 23 (1): 37–41.
Leask, A. (2006) World Heritage Site designation. In: A. Leask and A. Fyall (eds.)
Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, pp. 5–19.
Lim, G.E. (2009) Our vision of an international city.
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/2009/oct09/lge/lge1030.htm, accessed 6
January 2014
Lim, M.H. (2012) A current view of Penang’s development: rhetoric & reality. Penang
Forum 5, 4 August, http://penangforum.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/pg‐
forum‐5‐2012mah‐hui.pdf, accessed 24 April 2014.
Lim, W.S., Teoh, A.P. and Che Yusof, C.A. (2012) More and more malls in Penang. Penang
Monthly, 2 March, http://penangmonthly.com/more‐and‐more‐malls‐in‐
penang/, accessed 15 April 2014.
Loh, F.K.W. (2010) Restructuring federal–state relations in Malaysia: From centralised
to co‐operative Federalism? The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of
International Affairs 99 (407): 131–140.
Loh, W.L. (2009) Penang´s trade and shipping in the imperial age. In: S.G. Yeoh, W.L. Loh,
K.S. Nasution, and N. Khor (eds.) Penang and its region: A story of an Asian
entrepot. Singapore: NUS Press. pp. 83–102.
Mayes, R. (2008) A place in the sun: The politics of place, identity and branding. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy 4 (2): 124–135.
Millar, S. (2006) Stakeholders and community participation. In: A. Leask and A. Fyall
(eds.) Managing World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, pp. 37–54.
Nasution, S.K. (2008) George Town: The challenge of World Heritage listing. Heritage
Asia, pp. 26–28.
Negussie, E. (2006) Implications of neo‐liberalism for built heritage management:
Institutional and ownership structures in Ireland and Sweden. Urban Studies 43
(10):1803–1824.
Ooi, C.S. (2001) Tourist historical products: Packaged pasts of Denmark and Singapore.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 1 (2): 113–132.
Ooi, C.S. (2002) Contrasting strategies: Tourism in Denmark and Singapore. Annals of
Tourism Research. 29 (3): 689–706.
Ooi, C.S. (2004) Poetics and politics of destination branding: Denmark. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 4 (2): 107–128.
Ooi, C.S. (2008) Reimagining Singapore as a creative nation: The politics of place
branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4 (4): 287–302.

18 
 
Ooi, C.S. and Pedersen, J.S. (2010) City branding and film festivals: Re‐evaluating
stakeholder’s relations.Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6 (4): 316–332.
Ooi, C.S. (2011) Branding and the accreditation approach: Singapore. In: N. Morgan, A.
Pritchard and R. Pride (eds.) Destination Brands. Oxford: Butterworth‐
Heinemann, pp. 185‐196.
Ooi, C.S. (2012) Good Tourism Policies : Walking the Tightrope. (January), Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Business School.
Ooi, C.S. (2013) Why are cities becoming alike when each city is branded as different ?
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
Ooi, K.B., Chua, R. and Quah, J.H. (2011) Life on the list. Penang Monthly. 2 February.
http://penangmonthly.com/life‐on‐the‐list/, 25 March 2014.
Pagdin, C. (1995) Assessing tourism impacts in the Third World : a Nepal case study.
Progress in Planning (44): 185–266.
Phang, S.N. (2008) Decentralisation or recentralisation ? Trends in local government in
Malaysia. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance May (1):126–132.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Cohen, R. (2011) World Heritage Site:Is it an effective brand
name?: A case study of a religious heritage site. Journal of Travel Research 50 (5):
482–495.
Ryan, J. and Silvanto, S. (2009) The World Heritage List: The making and management
of a brand [online]. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 5 (4): 290–300.
Ryan, J. and Silvanto, S. (2010) World Heritage Sites: The purposes and politics of
destination branding. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 27 (5): 533–545.
Sarkissian, M. (1997) Cultural chameleons : Portuguese Eurasian strategies for survival
in post‐colonial Malaysia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 28 (2): 249–262.
Sarkissian, M. (1998) Tradition, tourism, and the cultural show: Malaysia’s diversity on
display. Journal of Musicological Research 17 (2): 87–112.
Shackley, M. (1998) Introduction: world heritage sites. In: M. Shackley (ed.). Visitor
Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth‐
Heinemann., pp. 194–205.
Shukry, A. (2013) Nazri “covering up” for Malacca govt. Free Malaysia Today, 26 March,
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/06/26/jonker‐
walk‐nazri‐%e2%80%98covering‐up%e2%80%99‐for‐malacca‐govt/, accessed
26 March 2014.
Sin Chew Jit Poh (2010) Najib declares Melaka a developed state 21 October,
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/46858, accessed 2 February 2014.
Smith, A. (2011) Rennell World Heritage Site : Misunderstandings, inconsistencies and
opportunities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the
Pacific Islands World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Islands. International
Journal of Heritage Studies 17 (6): 37–41.
Smith, M. (2002) A Critical evaluation of the global accolade : the significance of World
Heritage Site status for Maritime Greenwich. International Journal of Heritage
Studies 8 (2): 137–151.
Starin, D. (2008) World Heritage designation. Critical Asian Studies 40 (4): 639–652.
Tan, L.E. (2009) Conjunctures, confluences, contestations : A perspective on Penang
history. In: S.G. Yeoh, W. L. Loh, K.S. Nasution and N. Khor (eds.) Penang and its
region: A story of an Asian entrepot. Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 7–29.
Teo, P. (2003) The limits of imagineering : A case study of Penang. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 27 (3): 545–563.

19 
 
The Star online (2008) Azalina: Tourism MoUs with Opposition‐ruled states to be
terminated. 3 April,
http://www.thestar.com.my/story/?file=%252f2008%252f4%252f3%252fnatio
n%252f20833921&sec=nation, accessed 2 February 2014.
The Star online (2012) Malacca to build Porto Historia commercial complex costing
RM92mil. 20 November, http://www.thestar.com.my/story/file, accessed 21
February 2014.
The Malay Mail online (2013) Don’t blame the Chinese. 15 May,
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/dont‐blame‐chinese‐for‐
may‐13‐mca‐leaders‐say, accessed 27 March 2014.
Tucker, H. and Emge, A. (2010) Managing a World Heritage Site: The case of Cappadocia.
Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 21 (1): 41–
54.
Turnbull, C.M. (2009) Penang´s changing role in the Straits Settlement. In: S.G. Yeoh,
W.L. Loh, K.S. Nasution and N. Khor (eds.) Penang and its region: A story of an
Asian entrepot. Singapore: NUS Press,pp. 30–53.
Turnbull, M. (2007) Internal security in the Straits Settlements , 1826‐1867. Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies 1 (1): 37–53.
UNESCO (2014) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention‐en.pdf, accessed 5 Mei
2014.
UNESCO (2013) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/, accessed 3 March 2014.
UNESCO (2008) World Heritage Information Kit.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/567, accessed 3 March 2014.
Webster, A. (2011) The development of British commercial and political networks in the
Straits Settlements 1800 to 1868: The rise of a colonial and regional economic
identity? Modern Asian Studies 45 (04): 899–929.
Wee, B. (2009) Malacca : a World Heritage Site. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Purple
Production and PR Consultants (M) Sdn Bhd.
Westwood, S. (2011) Branding a ´new´ destination: Abu Dhabi. In: N. Morgan, A.
Pritchard and R. Pride (eds.) Destination Brands. Oxford: Butterworth‐
Heinemann, pp. 197–212.
Winter, T. (2008) Post‐conflict heritage and tourism in Cambodia: The burden of
Angkor. International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 (6):524–539.
Winter, T. (2007) Rethinking tourism in Asia. Annals of Tourism Research 34 (1):27–44.
Worden, N. (2001) “Where it all Began”: the representation of Malaysian heritage in
Melaka. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7 (3):199–218.
Worden, N. (2003) National identity and heritage tourism in Melaka. Indonesia and the
Malay World 31 (89):31–43.
World Heritage Committee (2008) Examination of nomination of natural, mixed and
cultural properties to the World Heritage List ‐ Melaka and George Town, Historic
Cities of the Straits of Malacca (MALAYSIA).
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1486/,accessed 4 April 2014.
Yang, C., Lin, H. and Han, C. (2010) Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China :
The role of World Heritage Sites. Tourism Management 31 (6):827–837.
Yasuda, H. (2010) World heritage and cultural tourism in Japan. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 4 (4):366–375.

20 
 
Zawawi, I. (2004) Globalization and national identity: Managing ethnicity and cultural
pluralism in Malaysia. In: Y. Sato (ed.) Growth and Governance in Asia. Hawaii:
Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, pp. 115–135.
1001 Creations (2011) Melaka Street Map.

21