Tourism in South-East Asia

Michael Hitchcock, Victor T. King, Michael J.G. Parnwell, Michael Hitchcock, Victor T. King, Michael J.G. Parnwell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780429775840
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

South-East Asia has developed rapidly as a tourist destination, but what are the effects of this growth upon the peoples of the region? How far is it possible to control the impact of tourism whilst also supporting the industry's role in the region's development? This book, first published in 1993, attempts to answer these questions by providing a critical analysis of the nature of tourism as it has developed in the area. It questions commonly held assumptions about tourism both from a western perspective and from the point of view of policy makers in the region. It explores central issues such as the impact of tourism on the environment, culture and the economy, placing it within an historical and political context in order to assess the implications of current developments. The contributors use case studies from a variety of countries on such aspects as the sex industry, dream holidays and rural handicrafts, assessing tourist perceptions, both domestic and international, and policy decisions. By taking a long-term perspective it should provoke thought on the ways to develop sustainable tourism for the future.

1 Tourism in South-East Asia: introduction

Michael Hitchcock, Victor T. King and Michael J. G. Parnwell

Tourism has become one of South-East Asia’s foremost industries. Although the region receives less than 11 per cent of the world’s international tourist trade, the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) are experiencing a boom in both foreign and domestic tourism. The number of foreign visitors has doubled, receipts from tourism have tripled during the last decade, and tourism has become the leading source of foreign exchange in countries like Thailand. Tourism is the second largest industry in the Philippines and the third largest earner of foreign currency in Singapore. In Indonesia tourism has moved into fourth place, outstripping rubber and coffee as an earner of foreign exchange in 1990.¹ Even the non-ASEAN nations such as Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar (Burma), where the income derived from tourism is low, are attempting to expand their own tourism industries. Vietnam has enjoyed an exponential growth in tourism over the last few years, rising from a meagre 20,000 visitors in 1 86 to 187,000 in 1990, and projected to increase further to half a million by 1995. A knock-on effect of the tourism boom in South-East Asia has been the development of tourism in neighbouring regions, particularly in Yunnan, southern China, which has much in common culturally with South-East Asia. Only oil-rich Brunei, an exception among the ASEAN states, seems content to live with only a little tourism. Tourist arrivals in the Asia Pacific region are projected to increase at 7 per cent annually until the end of the century, a much higher rate than the global average of around 4.5 per cent per annum.

The phenomenal growth in tourism in South-East Asia, as elsewhere in the developing world, has been associated with a number of factors and processes. One of the more important of these has been an increase in people’s ability to afford to travel to the region. This may be attributed to two parallel factors: first, rising levels of affluence in the main source areas, and second, the steadily falling cost, in real terms, of travel to the region. Before the late-1960s, only relatively small numbers of people travelled to South-East Asia, principally from the wealthy industrialised countries of Western Europe, the United States and Australasia, and consisting of those social groups which could afford the not inconsiderable cost of sea-, and later airborne travel to the Far East. The advent of cheap charter flights and package holidays revolutionised international tourism, initially creating opportunities for mass travel, respectively, to the periphery of Europe (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece), Central America and the Caribbean, and the South Pacific, and later including more distant destinations in Asia and elsewhere.

During the 1970s and 1980s the cost of travel to the region remained more or less constant in real terms, and this, combined with rising levels of disposable incomes in the main sending countries, led to a phenomenal increase in international tourism world-wide. During the late 1980s several countries in the Asia Pacific region, most notably Japan and the Asian NICs (Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea), became important source areas for South-East Asian tourism (accounting for 23 per cent of tourist arrivals in 1989 – approximately the same proportion as from Europe, the United States and Australasia combined), reflecting not only their own growing wealth but also an increasing amount of time for leisure and a greater inclination to spend this time abroad. At the same time, larger numbers of people within the South-East Asian region, most notably those from the rapidly developing countries of ASEAN, have taken to travelling within the region. In 1989, almost 37 per cent of international tourism occurred within the ASEAN region. Once again rising levels of affluence within the region, coupled with better and cheaper facilities for travel and tourism, help to explain this growth in intra-regional tourism. Also, as tourism infrastructure has developed to accommodate existing tourist demand, so the facilities available have attracted new waves of visitors.

For ‘Western’ tourists in particular, other factors have also contributed to South-East Asia becoming an important destination area. The gradual shift in the ‘centre of gravity’ of mass tourism away from the longer-established destinations (in Europe, the Costa del Sol, the Algarve, the Cote d’Azur and the Aegean Islands) towards the Far East and elsewhere is partly a reaction to the over-development of these major tourism centres. The movement in international tourism towards alternative destinations, such as South-East Asia, also reflects changing consumer preferences: the search for something ‘different’, with new natural and cultural environments placed high on tourists’ lists of priorities – provided they can also find the requisite sun, sea and sand. As some of the chapters in this volume highlight, South-East Asia has also established itself as an important destination for ‘special interest’ forms of tourism, particularly wildlife tourism.

Ironically, although large numbers of tourists may be attracted to the region by its perceived ‘differentness’, lured by the images of culture and landscape which are vividly portrayed in the promotional literature, few are able or willing to tolerate a great deal of real novelty. Many will remain closetted in hotel complexes or resorts, will follow package tours, may obtain a glimpse of carefully orchestrated cultural performances, and may not be especially interested in what lies beyond the perimeter walls of the hotel.² The commonplace view that tourism is a form of escapism may appear absurd at first glance, especially when the destinations (built-up, congested, commercialised, frenetic) are not appreciably different from the ones the tourists left behind. However, ‘escapism’ depends not so much on a marked change in environment – though it may enhance the tourist’s experience – but on a change of behaviour, albeit highly conventionalised. The very fact that the visitor is separated from everyday social realities may be enough to engender much of the sense of ‘otherness’.

Another important factor in the recent boom in international tourism in South-East Asia has been the very active promotion of tourism by the various member states of ASEAN and, increasingly, some of the socialist states. To a varying degree, the countries of South-East Asia have banded together to encourage the growth of tourism within the region. They set out to achieve this through a coordinated advertising campaign which strove to promote South-East Asia’s attractions world-wide. Up until the early 1980s the members of ASEAN were largely dependent on agriculture and the export of primary products such as minerals, petroleum and timber. In order to reduce their dependence on farming and extractive industries the ASEAN countries tried to develop areas of their economies which had hitherto received comparatively little government attention. It was hoped that the introduction of tourism on a major scale would help diversify the region’s economic base and provide a boost for a host of related industries ranging from transport to arts and crafts. It was envisaged that the infrastructure introduced alongside tourism would benefit local communities and assist the process of industrialisation. Environmental interests, especially with regard to the development of national parks, were also catered for.

Following the success of Visit Thailand Year in 1987, the various ASEAN government tourist boards agreed to promote their tourist industries in succession, culminating in a joint venture in 1992, known as Visit ASEAN Year. As was anticipated, the number of visitors from the wealthy countries of the Pacific Rim (Japan, Australia, Canada and the USA) and the European Community rose steadily, a vindication of ASEAN’s strategy. In Malaysia, for example, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which was established in 1987, received $100 million from the government for its initial promotional expenditure (Bird, 1989, 1). The US and Japanese markets were targeted, and in 1988 a total of $22 million was earmarked for marketing in the USA alone (ibid.). Tourist arrivals in Malaysia were predicted to reach 4.3 million by 1990 and receipts of $3 billion were expected (Bird, 1989, 2). But following the very successful Visit Malaysia Year 1990 the number of foreign visitors reached 7.079 million (Bangkok Bank Monthly Review, May 1991, 182).

Tourism, however, is an extremely sensitive industry and ASEAN’s strategy was devastated in the first half of 1991 when international air travel declined because of the uncertainties of the Gulf War. Prior to that the Philippines suffered a set-back following the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos. The downturn occasioned by the Gulf War hit Indonesia particularly badly and what was supposed to be Visit Indonesia 1991 was quickly dubbed in Jakarta as Visit Indonesia Nanti Nanti (Later Later). Tourism did, however, recover later in the year and the Indonesian authorities were able to record an increase on the previous year (see Chapter 4).³ The problems and successes of the ASEAN campaign will undoubtedly be of great interest to nations in other developing regions.

THE STUDY OF TOURISM IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Along with the growth of the tourism industry in South-East Asia, there has been an increasing awareness of the need to understand its dynamics, the development processes engendered and their consequences for the region and its peoples. Nevertheless, studies of tourism available to date do not provide us with anything approaching a comprehensive view of the social, economic, cultural, environmental and political issues, processes and problems involved in the rapid expansion of both international and domestic tourism in South-East Asia. The only partial exception to this is the substantial, though still far from complete, knowledge of tourism in Bali.

To be sure, there have been some excellent studies of aspects of tourism in the region, some undertaken by various of the authors who have contributed to this present book: Picard’s work on Bali, Cohen’s on Thailand, Richter’s on the Philippines, Kadir Din’s on Malaysia, and Wood’s papers on South-East Asia generally. However, these are often isolated contributions, which are not part of any multidisciplinary programme of research on a particular region or population, nor has there been much attempt to relate these studies comparatively.

The present volume is an attempt to begin this programme of work by presenting a collection of contributions from different disciplinary perspectives and on a range of different countries and peoples within South-East Asia. The region’s great cultural, economic and environmental diversity, coupled with the very rapid changes which have been associated with the tourism boom, make it a particularly appropriate location for an examination of the characteristics and effects of tourism development. At this stage we can do no more than indicate what already has been achieved, and what more needs to be done. What is clear is that the research on tourism as presented in this volume raises certain central conceptual and practical issues in the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, geography, economics and history; it also involves examination of the developmental processes at work within South-East Asian countries and how we might understand these and attempt to plan for them satisfactorily; it has required as well a reconceptualisation of such key concepts in anthropology and sociology as ‘culture’ and ‘ethnicity’.

Much of the debate on tourism in developing countries, including those in South-East Asia, has focused on whether its effects are beneficial or negative, and whether they are developmental or anti-developmental. We can see the main issues in this debate in the present collection. It is still particularly significant in the disciplines of economics and geography in which a predominant concern is the contribution, actual or potential, of tourism to development; it is also a question of importance in anthropology and sociology but, in this case, the discussion has become rather more complex and has to do with the various ways of conceptualising culture and society.

After all, there are some effects which are quantifiable, and, as we see later in the case of the economics contributions, it is at least theoretically possible to draw up a statistical balance sheet of various benefits and disadvantages: foreign exchange earnings, employment generation, infrastructural development and economic diversification set against such items as the leakages resulting from the repatriation of profits, dividends and imports. Economics can compare different economic sectors in these terms and there has been an increasing statistical sophistication in assessing developmental effects, particularly with regard to Singapore. But statistics will always be imperfect and, even in terms of certain economic criteria, analysts will often evaluate these in different terms: for example, whether it is better to encourage the specialisation of economic activity or to diversify; or whether spatial concentration in support of economic efficiency is to be preferred over economic dispersal in the interests of regional development.

Other effects are, however, very problematical to evaluate. We shall consider later various environmental issues appertaining to tourism, which are extremely difficult to cost. For the moment we turn to social and cultural matters. Changes such as cultural denigration, corruption, loss of traditional pride and ethnic identity, and so on are extremely difficult to measure accurately and to interpret objectively. There has also been a very marked shift in conceptualising cultural change resulting from tourism, and there is an emerging consensus that it is too simplistic to argue that the effects are either ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

The factors to take into account in examining and attempting to evaluate the socio-cultural effects of tourism are numerous, but we merely outline the main ones below, since they are each developed in some detail in various of the subsequent chapters.

1. The time/period when the research was undertaken. Re-studies suggest that effects change through time: what was considered deleterious at one time may be considered beneficial at another, and vice versa. Snap-shot views of the effects of tourism may equally be misleading, suggesting the need for more longitudinal studies of the effects of tourism. In this connection, Picard’s studies of tourism in Bali clearly have contributed to a historically grounded understanding of the transformations of local cultural forms in relation to tourism development (Picard, 1990; Picard, forthcoming). Wilson argues in his chapter for much more attention to the time dimension in anthropological studies of tourism.
2. The particular case study, social class, ethnic group, region or community which has been selected. The effects of tourism are variable; much depends upon the nature of the interactions between hosts and guests, and the circumstances which surround these interactions. It is very difficult to generalise from a specific case, and we need many more studies in a region or country, located in a directly comparative framework, before we can pass judgement on the desirability or otherwise of tourism. At the extreme, two neighbouring communities could be experiencing very different effects from tourism. We already know that people from different social classes are very likely to react to and take advantage of, or suffer from, transformations and innovations in very different ways.
3. The kinds of tourism promoted in a given region/country. This is not to say that environmental or historical tourism will not have social or cultural consequences. But it is important to establish what governments are promoting and what tourists do and see. A particular country may concentrate on a very specific or a wide range of tourism activities, and different tourism development strategies may very well have different socio-cultural consequences.
4. The scale of tourist activity: in other words the volume of tourist arrivals, how long they stay in particular locations, and how much they spend. Some parts of South-East Asia are still not significantly affected by tourism, while others have been inundated. The intensity of tourism activity is likely to have different kinds or degrees of influence on local societies and cultures.
5. The origins and ethnic backgrounds of tourists: there has been very little research on domestic tourism, and yet it is a very important element in South-East Asia. The popular conception of the deleterious effects of Western-derived tourism on Oriental cultures is a partly mistaken one in South-East Asia. Western tourists, because of their physical appearance and different cultural behaviour, are more likely to be regarded as tourists per se than other visitors in some ASEAN countries. In Indonesia, for example, the term turis (tourist) designates any person with White European features, whereas Asian tourists are referred to by their respective nationalities. Thus, a German or an Australian will be called an orang turis (tourist), whereas a Japanese will be known as an orang jepang (Japanese), a Chinese as an orang cina (Chinese), and so on. Indeed, in some South-East Asian societies Westerners historically had low social status, as was especially the case in Bali (Vickers, 1989, fig. 9). On the neighbouring island of Lombok the Balinese set themselves and other Indonesians against the Chinese and Japanese, who are viewed as essentially similar on account of their writing. The Lombok Balinese, however, distinguish all East Asian groups from White Europeans who are referred to as turis (tourist) or belanda (Dutch) (Duff-Cooper, 1986, 214). Further east in Bima, Sumbawa, the word turis does not have pejorative associations, though the term ‘hippy’ may be applied to any White European deemed to have a disreputable appearance.
   Not only is local tourism a substantial element in such places as Malaysia and Java, but regional tourism is also vital. For example, about three-quarters of foreign visitors to Malaysia come from the ASEAN region, and a significant proportion of others from East and South Asia. We must beware then of assuming that local cultures are being transformed in undesirable ways by the secularism of modern Western values. In some respects local cultural forms, as in Java, are responding to local needs and interests, and contributing to either strengthened regional identities or to national consciousness. Tourists are not a homogeneous class or category; they differ in nationality, social background, values, perceptions and motivations.
6. It is often problematic to differentiate the effects of tourism from other processes and effects of change – from industrialisation, urbanisation, enhanced physical mobility, the improvements in communication, and the influence of the mass media.
7. The studies which have tried to argue that tourism has had either posit...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Tourism in South-East Asia: introduction
• 2 Time and tides in the anthropology of tourism
• 3 Tourism, culture and the sociology of development
• 4 ‘Cultural tourism’ in Bali
• 5 Tourism and culture in Malaysia
• 6 Peter Pan in South-East Asia
• 7 Packaging dreams
• 8 Open-ended prostitution as a skilful game of luck
• 9 Tourism policy-making in South-East Asia
• 10 The economics of tourism in Asia and the Pacific
• 11 Tourism and economic development in ASEAN
• 12 Tourism and rural handicrafts in Thailand
• 13 Early tourism in Malaya
• 14 Early travellers in Borneo
• 15 Environmental issues and tourism in Thailand
• 16 Dragon tourism in Komodo, eastern Indonesia
• 17 Tourism and conservation in Indonesia and Malaysia
• 18 Dialogue with the hosts
• References
• Index