Reflective Responses

Original Article

Truly Asia and global city? Branding strategies and contested identities in Kuala Lumpur Received (in revised form): 14th August 2013

Frederic A. L. Bouchon has a background in Social sciences. He holds a PhD in urban planning. He has been working with Taylor’s University, School of Hospitality and Tourism in Malaysia for 7 years. His area of research focuses on tourism, planning, destination development and their relationship to place branding. He is a member of the Centre of Research for Innovation in Tourism (CRIT) in Malaysia, and also contributes to the CIEU (Urban Studies research) laboratory affiliated with the French National Council of Research (CNRS).

The article received the award for best conference paper at the 4th Destination Branding & Marketing Conference, held in Cardiff on 5–7 December 2012, sponsored by the quarterly journal of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Palgrave Macmillan.

ABSTRACT Urban economic development is driven by service industries and inno- vation where quality of life, infrastructures and creative image play mutually rein- forcing roles on the attractiveness of cities and tourism. Since 2010, the Malaysian government has embarked on the nation’s Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) that places Kuala Lumpur among the pivotal agents of change while becoming a competitive global city. Before that, the city had positioned itself as a multicultural and colourful tourism destination within the Malaysia, Truly Asia’s campaign frame- work. The aim of global positioning places Kuala Lumpur’s branding in a new and ambiguous situation. The current urban brand relies on contrasted, if not blurred, images, echoing a society with contested identities. This study aims to review the evolution of Kuala Lumpur’s image, and urban and tourism marketing strategies. It also aims to examine the urban branding of a nation-building upon Malay–Muslim values against the Global city branding favouring a more liberal agenda. It underlines the challenges in reconciling local values that stress on an essentialist perception of image with the global city values. The methodology used follows a case study approach. It takes into account a review of information in the public domain and analyses the promotional materials. The article is articulated around the conceptual framework of urban tourism as well as urban branding. The findings from this research reveal a pattern of top-down strategies that illustrates competing stories told by proponents and opponents of the urban project. On the basis of this research, the article argues for a specific framework of branding, when it comes to places, with competing narratives. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2014) 10, 6–18. doi:10.1057/pb.2013.21; published online 4 December 2013

Keywords: urban branding; Kuala Lumpur; Malaysia; destination image; global city; cultural norm

Correspondence: Frederic A. L. Bouchon School of Hospitality, Tourism & Culinary Arts, Taylor’s University, Lakeside Campus, 1 Jalan Taylor's, 47500 Subang Jaya, Malaysia.

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18 www.palgrave-journals.com/pb/

INTRODUCTION According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (2011), since 2005 tourism has become the largest service sector in the world, accounting for 6.8 per cent of the global GDP. Tourism has a direct impact on the economic, environmental and social development of a destination (Hall, 2005). Developed economic cities like Barcelona, London, Hong Kong and Singapore have placed the emphasis on quality of life and the construction of large tourism infrastructures though urban renewal to become destinations. Branding seems to be an essential tool to assert an urban destination in a competitive tourism environment. Cities worldwide aim to be recognized as ‘global’, and to be influential, while asserting their distinctiveness. Kuala Lumpur, the capital city of Malaysia, a multicultural Muslim country, receiving more tourists annually than its total population, provides an interesting case study of the dynamics of globalization. In the setting of multiple and contested identities, Kuala Lumpur faces several challenges in its branding. First, globalization brings both development and standardization, which can erode a place’s identity. Second, the globalization process is challenged by alternate economic, cultural and ideological propositions. For instance, Muslim countries promote values, sometimes in opposition to the liberal values inherent to globalization. Muslim destinations are therefore going through conflicting dynamics as in the case of Malaysia. Henderson (2010) underlines the problems and opportunities that arise when tourism and Islam come into contact. Third, Kuala Lumpur as a distinct brand has not been defined and remains dependent on the country’s identity and image. The colourful images of the Malaysia, Truly Asia brand have given the country a consensual multicultural, tropical, Islamic, liberal, developing identity. The lists of qualifiers are endless and perhaps contradictory. However, the pressure to achieve global city status by 2020 forces change on Kuala Lumpur, which is expressing future urban development and branding choices. This article reviews the tourism development of the city, the branding efforts deployed with Truly Asia, and the global city’s objectives of urban positioning. Furthermore, it discusses the

challenges in achieving a global city brand. The methodology used follows a case study approach. It takes into account a review of information in the public domain, observations and analyses from the various sources of branding.

URBAN BRANDING AND THE GLOBAL CITY Defining a destination brand is more complex than a good or service. Aaker (2004) refers to the concept of brand equity, as being the result of five factors: loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and other assets related to the brand. However, a city is more than a brand or image. The destination brand is defined as a ‘name, symbol, logo or other graphic element that identifies and differentiates the destination’, while the destination image is ‘a general representation of an urban destination in the minds of visitors, that they are coming or not, in terms of its various tourist functions’ (Hsu et al, 2008). The image of the destination city can be understood as a set of representations, perceptions, beliefs, ideas and impressions that individuals have on attributes and activities available at the destination (Gartner, 1996). In the case of countries and large cities, the definition exercise is even more difficult because of regional and societal diversity. The image of a city is not only in relation to its role in tourism. The branding adds attributes to the place (situation, climate, economy, morphology, demographics, culture and history), in other words its identity (Lynch, 1994) and connotation (reputation, perception, branding efforts, media, residents, visitors) help the city to be recognized as a place of civilization and culture.

A distinction has been made between the marketing and communication efforts for the desired brand from brand owners – the Brand identity, and the actual brand, perceived in reality – the branding (Azevedo, 2004; Pike, 2008). The Brand identity is that of marketing professionals, whereas the branding is constructed by internal (residents/citizens, business and the media) and external stakeholders (governments, NGOs, business, visitors, media) that maintain complex relationships (Aaker, 2004). Kavaratzis and

Truly Asia and global city

7© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

Ashworth (2008) argue that branding efforts foster the relationship between local authority and residents and influences interaction with visitors. The city’s relationship with other places also affects the brand as much as the residents’ identities. Parisians or New Yorkers are often seen as different breed of French or Americans.

Digital marketing has tremendously changed place branding with systematic use of Websites and reduction of costs, but has also increased third- party perspectives that depart from the Brand identity control of official place marketers and advertisers. This is the area of word-of-mouth, reputation governed by media, investors, residents and visitors. The use of the Internet has given this communication an unprecedented strength in branding with user-created contents (that is, blogs, twitter, social networks and forums like Trip Advisor). Such user review contents are powerful destination branding agents. While traditional media act as opinion leaders, the digital culture gives one the opportunity to digest local events with a global mindset (Tan and Yeo, 2009). These technological changes are at the foundation of the existence of the ‘global city’ with the participation of its residents.

A global city is defined as a metropolis with economic, political, cultural influence deployed through multiscalar relationships (Sassen, 2007). A global city’s status is a synonym for efficiency, quality of life, development and attractiveness, and this label receives a positive response. As globalization offers development potential to cities, it also creates major competition and aggressive urban marketing and branding. Many cities undertook urban renewal, building ‘world- class’ amenities and iconic skylines to change their image and become tourism destinations, despite the importance of efforts required for needed for a city to change its morphology (Racine, 2007, Elsheshtawy, 2010, Nadeau et al, 2009). Dubai and Shanghai have gone through extreme metamorphosis, grasping the importance of the relationship between urban planning, architecture and image, with the purpose of serving tourism growth, and as a source of comfort for residents. Beyond world-class infrastructures, and iconic buildings, standardized functions and attributes

articulate the global city brand. These functions revolve around 24/7 operation hours, clustering of tourism attractions (on economic, cultural and geographical grounds, such as leisure and entertainment districts), wide range of experiences, theme parks and aggressive branding efforts on destination with renowned product offer (Hannigan, 1998; Kotler et al, 2002; Knafou and Duhamel, 2007). Furthermore, Florida (2002) argues that large cities with a socio-economic mix of technology, creativity and tolerance attract talent and tourism that are the keys to a global city. Global cities develop a wide cultural and leisure offer to raise their global status by creating an impression of constant and renewed entertainment. Singapore adopted a similar recipe in its Brand identity to move away from the stern image of being solely an efficient business hub (Ooi, 2010).

However, the global cities branding efforts to claim their city’s uniqueness seems vain. Competition between cities to capture attention and attract flows of people, ideas and capital seems to require a strong Brand identity and constantly renewed attractions. Global cities in their attempt to reach global standards reproduce the same infrastructures, with the construction of iconic buildings, organization of global events and tourism thematization (Richards and Wilson, 2005; Ooi, 2010). The standardization of urban spaces induces a serialization of forms and a dilution of the urban character in cities. However, Hall and Rath (2006) indicate that place branding portraying an exceptional quality of life and identity participates in a process of reasserting localization in response to the massive changes brought by globalization. In interchangeable landscapes of modern societies, branding efforts should be deployed not to communicate the idea of place distinctiveness and tourism gaze, but rather to engage tourists and residents in creative activities (Richards and Wilson, 2007).

Another point is that global cities are challenged as cultural expression. Zawawi (2004) argues that ‘globalization has given a new fluidity to the bounded notion of cultural and national identity. Multicultural and heterogeneity are now part of modern societies, in which elements of differentiation and unity are mixed’. However, in

Bouchon

8 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

different cultural contexts, the common features or characteristics of global city are a point of contention. For instance, the global city’s individualist lifestyle and openness to social diversity that are its trademarks are challenged as culturally biased and different from the ‘universal’ connotation that the word ‘global’ may carry (Huntington, 1996; Friedman, 2006; Fukuyama, 2006). Cultural difference in a Muslim society would portray a different reality knowing that Muslims should limit alcohol consumption, prostitution, gambling, prevent men and women mixing and maintain a general modesty in the social space (Zamani-Farahani and Henderson, 2010). By contrast, Friedman (2006) interprets the Muslim world’s resistance to a universal process and mentions the lack of tolerance and extremism as the exact opposite of the global city. Castells (2010), with The Power of Identity, discusses the often downplayed importance of identity in the globalization process and asserts the importance of Glocalisation, a more suited way to reassert cultural ownership of a place while embracing the technological changes. In the case of multicultural Malaysia, modernity, pop culture and new technologies are areas where the Malaysian cosmopolitanism is flexible and offers characteristics of hybridization (Zawawi, 2004). Kuala Lumpur’s multiracial and multi-religious population and the tension between Islamic revivalism and globalization provide an interesting research context (Noor Hazarina et al, 2007). This context places Kuala Lumpur’s ambition of global city status and image at the centre of this research on the city’s positioning.

TOURISM IN KUALA LUMPUR Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’s capital city, is ranked among the top world urban destinations with

more than 10 million international visitors received in 2011 compared with 1 million in 1995 (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2011). It represents 38 per cent of Malaysia’s international visitors (Table 1), a figure similar to Singapore’s. One-third of the international visitors to Kuala Lumpur (not including ASEAN) come from Western countries, while 20 per cent are from the Middle-East, with high-spending per capita (2011).

Tourism grew fast between 2000 and 2010, benefiting from Middle-Eastern tourists, the ability of Chinese nationals to travel and the boom of low-cost aviation. Since the 2000s, Malaysia has received increasing numbers of Muslim visitors. The growth in arrivals from the Middle-East has also justified the need to better sell the city for intra-Islamic travel (Henderson, 2003). Muslim visitors cite the freedom felt in Kuala Lumpur and the easiness to practice Muslim rites while enjoying a unique cultural diversity. The liberalization of air transport in the early 2000s caused a rapid growth in low-cost airlines that transformed Kuala Lumpur into a hub within Air Asia. Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) traffic has grown from 6 million passengers in 1998 to more than 36 million in 2011. The share of tourism revenue in the Malaysian balance of payments increased steadily from 32.7 per cent in 2000 to 43 per cent in 2005 (Malaysia MOT, 2004). In 2011, total tourist receipts reached US$18.8 billion compared with $ 10.1 billion in 2005 and $ 3.5 billion in 2000 (Ministry of Tourism, 2009; World Travel and Tourism Council, 2011). These figures make Malaysia tourism a strategic sector for economic development. The desire to attract more visitors, talents and investors is expressed by the latest governmental planning (Economic Planning Unit, 2010). The Greater Kuala Lumpur represents a

Table 1: International tourist arrivals and revenue, Malaysia

2000 2005 2009 2012

Foreign tourists 10 221 582 16 431 055 23 646 191 25 037 324 Revenue (billion dollar) 5.59 10.31 17.21 19.55

Source: Tourism Malaysia.

Truly Asia and global city

9© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

third of the country’s room supply with more than 43 000 units (MAH, 2011). The objective set is to build 80 000 additional rooms in four- and five-star hotels, to support the national ambitions of 38 million tourists by 2020 (Prime Minister’s Department, 2011).

Kuala Lumpur grew in a relatively short time from a mining settlement in the nineteenth century to today’s metropolitan area (Greater Kuala Lumpur) comprising 6 million people. British colonization established the foundation of the modern social fabric, favouring immigration from various communities making up the contemporary ‘plural society’ of Malaysia (Zawawi, 2004). Islam, the national religion, with 61 per cent of the population (Department of Statistics, 2009), and Malay culture are at the foundation of the Malaysian nation building. Yet, diverging from the single cultural reference idealized by the nation-state, the multicultural social fabric of the country has created an original nation made up of Bumiputera Malays (51 per cent per cent), Chinese (23 per cent), Indians (7 per cent) and other minorities. The Malaysian political model is based on a race- balanced compromise and a managerial type of governance (Pierre, 1999). Political allegiance has been organized around race-based parties, echoing a society where identities are constructed by communalism despite efforts to create unity (One Malaysia, Bangsa Malaysia). The economic development of the country has also attracted an important number of foreigners, notably to Kuala Lumpur (Figure 1).

Since Malaysia’s independence in 1957, Kuala Lumpur has grown tremendously. In becoming the country’s capital city, it served as a recipient and a reflection of Malaysia’s multicultural fabric and political complexities. Since the 1970s, contemporary Malaysia has been shaped by the ruling coalition advocating a Malay–Muslim identity while promoting a multicultural society. Infrastructure has played a key role in the city in supporting and facilitating the national project. Public agencies developed strategies to assert a more Malay–Muslim presence while the city grew tremendously. The government insisted on projects using modern techniques with local designs and markers. Interestingly though, in the new administrative capital, Putrajaya, the court, the palace and the numerous new mosques doting the territory with domes have Islamic-Arab aesthetics, which diverge from the traditional Islamic–Malay style (King, 2008). Yet, Kuala Lumpur combines different cultural influences without a dominating culture over another one. The city has long had a non-Malay-majority population that put it at odds with a Malay- dominated country (Figure 1). The city has a large Chinese-speaking population, a network of Chinese schools, media and businesses. The Tamil-speaking community has also a strong presence in the city. The Islamic influence, strongly embodied by the Malay culture, is reinforced with the Arab visitors and businesses that have flourished in the past 10 years.

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AND BRANDING EFFORTS Greater Kuala Lumpur spreads over the federal enclaves of Kuala Lumpur city and Putrajaya, and the urban part of the State of Selangor. Both federal and state governments share responsibilities over tourism development. The areas of interest and attractions of the metropolis are distributed across these territories, between the core city and the suburban parts like Sunway Lagoon, The Mines, Putrajaya, while Genting Highlands, with its casinos and recreation park, lies on the urban fringe (Figure 2).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Malaysia Greater KL KL City

Foreigners

Other

Indian

Chinese

Bumiputera

Figure 1: Ethnic diversity in Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur, 2010. Source: Statistics Malaysia.

Bouchon

10 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

Inside the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the largest commercial, tourism sites and accommodation are concentrated along the historic core and the business area of the Golden Triangle of Bukit Bintang and Kuala Lumpur City Center (KLCC). By the 1990s, megaprojects tried to address the quest for modernity, and to

communicate the new expected urban brand with a modern Muslim identity (Bunnell, 2002). The airport (KLIA), new digital and eco-friendly towns (Cyberjaya, Putrajaya), and KLCC are symbolized by the Petronas Twin Towers. This urban regeneration project was regarded as a branding tool for both the city and the country. However,

Figure 2: Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area tourism system (Bouchon, 2012).

Truly Asia and global city

11© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

Kuala Lumpur’s tropical image and colonial history survives through its Mogul-inspired public buildings and decrepit shop lots. This nostalgic ambiance is still echoed by some luxurious train services and quaint hotel offers. While Morgan and Pritchard (2003) advocate the need to take advantage of the place’s cultural origins and to build the brand on its history. The city’s diversity has recently been interpreted in neighbourhoods designated as ethnic enclaves as in Brickfields (Little India), Petaling Street (Chinatown), Kampung Baru (Malay heritage) to encourage heritage tourism. Tourism growth in Kuala Lumpur has also contributed to an increased supply of small tourist hotels and guesthouses, such as in the gentrified Changkat Bukit Bintang district.

National branding efforts: The colourful diversity Since the 1970s the Federal Government has progressively been involved in tourism planning, promotion and development strategies. The Ministry of Tourism and its promotion board, Tourism Malaysia, have a strategic and coordinating role, yet state governments have the authority on land policies (Amran, 2004; Hamimah, 2008). At the local level, state governments play a growing role in implementing policies, but also in driving their own branding, with promotion campaigns and products (festivals in Penang, Sarawak). The Malaysia Tourism Development Plan (1975) was the founding strategy

for tourism development. This plan sets out the main lines of development of tourism (seaside, nature, sports, cultural) and takes interest in Kuala Lumpur’s tourism growth (Table 2). The development of tourism and branding reflects the political and national agenda. The national tourism policy encourages economic development and social equity through tourism.

Over the years, Malaysia’s tourism development policies notably through the National Tourism Policies and the Malaysian 5-year plans have focused on the rural areas, whether coastal (for example, Langkawi) or inland with the promotion of eco-tourism (for example, Taman Negara, Borneo) while Kuala Lumpur was developed as a commercial hub (Table 2). In the 1990s, tourism promotion agencies and tourism professionals highlighted the difficulties in selling the country due to a deficit of international image, in comparison with neighbouring Thailand and Singapore. Furthermore, the national branding effort was not inclined to promote the country’s recent urbanization and growing urban lifestyle. The marketing strategies used by Tourism Malaysia (the promotion board of the Ministry of Tourism) to boost tourism such as Visit Malaysia Year campaigns (1990, 1994) portrayed the kampung (countryside) image in an attempt to capture an emerging domestic middle class. It also deliberately emphasized ‘clean’ tourism in harmony with the cultural sensibilities (Marzuki, 2010). Agro-tourism and ecotourism were put forward as a panacea to the problems of chronic

Table 2: Tourism policies and branding efforts for Kuala Lumpur (Bouchon, 2012)

Urban and tourism policies Implications for Kuala Lumpur Kuala Lumpur’s branding

Malaysia Tourism Development Plan (1975)

Modernization – infrastructure – hotels, Subang airport – and new city centre (Bkt Bintang)

Modern tropical city, Young nation’s capital city (architecture)

National Tourism Development (1989), Malaysia Tourism Policy (1990), National Ecotourism Plan (1997)

Business tourism, family tourism, entry city to Malaysia, transit towards the beach and natural destinations of the country-

Theme parks – ethnic diversity and Malayness – Gateway city to the hinterland Malls, National Heritage (Merdeka sq) – Asian values

KLSP2020 (2001), Second National Tourism Policy (2003), KLCP Plan 2020 (2007)

Globalizing megaprojects (New Airport (KLIA), Twin Towers, IT City, Putrajaya) higher positioning – shopping offer, MICE destination – nation’s and regional gateway

Modern Asian-Muslim, shopping, lively, colourful – Malaysia Truly Asia Twin Towers – Fast-growing City – Mix of liberal and conservative

ETP (2010) Urban destination: global role, access, importance of tourism, branding, build iconic places, develop cultural offer

Selangor Shines; VisitKL campaign. Lifestyle, Global City, creative city

Bouchon

12 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

underdevelopment of rural areas (Siti-Nabiha et al, 2008). However, the economic result remains weak, with tourism revenue per capita lower than in Thailand and a lack of notoriety from international markets.

The Malaysia, Truly Asia branding campaign launched by Tourism Malaysia in 1999 was timely, with the completion of the Twin Towers and other flagship projects in Kuala Lumpur. These new icons received a positive response from both tourists and Malaysians. The slogan has become an unofficial national motto, popular among Malaysia’s diverse communities for its inclusive connotation. To this date, it is still used as official tourism branding by Tourism Malaysia, which is an extremely rare case in institutional branding. The Second National Tourism Policy (2003–2010) has come to capitalize on the success of the branding and to upgrade ‘Destination Malaysia’ to a higher- end product. And the 8th Malaysia Plan (2001– 2005) recognized the importance of international tourism and made it a key national development strategy, with more than $1 billion allocated to tourism infrastructure and development. Malaysia is foremost promoted as a single destination made of beaches, nature and rural life. The branding of Kuala Lumpur from Tourism Malaysia is integrated in the national imagery, and depends on it: polychrome and diverse, a kaleidoscope of cultures, customs and cuisines placed in a functional city.

The emergence of ‘Malaysia’s global city’ Since the 2000s, the focus has shifted from nation building to global competition and the need for the capital city to deal with new flows of capital, ideas and people. The global ambitions of Kuala Lumpur (KL, to a world-class city) are expressed as a planning necessity by the Federal Authority (Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, 2007; SPAD, 2011). The Economic Transformation Program (ETP) launched by the Federal Government in 2010 aims to take the country out of the middle-income trap by 2020. Kuala Lumpur is given a key role to help revitalize the engine of the national economy and turn Kuala Lumpur into Malaysia’s global city (Pemandu,

2010) and it is encompassed as a metropolitan area (Greater Kuala Lumpur). The cost of the plan is estimated at $65.8 billion over 10 years, with only 2 per cent coming from the government ($1.3 billion) and the rest from the private sector (tours, catering, transport and so on). It emphasizes the positioning of Kuala Lumpur as a global city on par with other urban competitors. According to Yeoh (2005), crime, transportation, education and public safety are functional properties, while the creative class adds value to the urban brand. Qualitative improvement (transport, housing, income) and cultural and tourism offer expansion are planned to attract talent and boost the city’s global status (Table 2). Urban marketing agents also target investors and indirectly brand the city. InvestKL, the government-sponsored investment board, promotes the city as safe and open for business with an excellent transport system and world- class communications, simplified bureaucracy and a flexible labor market (Pemandu, 2010), a cheaper and politically stable alternative to Singapore while playing down ethnic and political tensions.

Global city standards are defined, for urban tourism, with a clustering strategy and ‘high net- worth’ visitor’s objectives. Furthermore, Malaysia aims to promote the advantages of being a Muslim destination with halal food, mosques and cultural proximity to the Muslim markets. Increasingly, multicultural modern societies and demographic changes are accentuating market segmentation (Morgan and Pritchard, 2003), and that seems to be a characteristic of Kuala Lumpur as a global city. The ETP’s global city direction is inspired by Singapore’s successes in introducing urban growth ingredients: liberalization, a creative city and investment in tourism infrastructure that enhance the business city. The focus has been emphasized on cash generating activities while arts and creativity are slowly introduced with an Arts Festival organized by the Ministry of Tourism for the first time in 2012. It remains cautious not to alienate the conservative and religious segments by avoiding portraying the hybridization in Kuala Lumpur’s urban identity. Kuala Lumpur and Singapore share similarities and a common past, but their social fabric and governance are different. Kuala Lumpur is facing the challenge of

Truly Asia and global city

13© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

accommodating the global city objective distinct identity.

CONFLICTING IMAGES AND EXPECTATIONS In Malaysia, only recently have cities started to emerge as singular destinations. Melaka and Penang with their UNESCO World Heritage label are now branded as the country’s heritage and art cities. Kuala Lumpur’s identity is dominated by the national promotion agenda. The national slogan is used as a substitute for the city because of its popularity and because of the absence of a specific branding strategy. The Ministry of Tourism, with Tourism Malaysia, sets the country’s image and is 100 per cent funded by the government. The city of Kuala Lumpur receives a minimal budget for tourism and limits its promotion to a logo (Visit KL), few publications, public relations and a Website where the tourism image reflects the economic ambitions of the city: Selamat Datang – welcome to a world class city. However, the opinion towards tourism development and globalization in Malaysia shows different approaches among Islamic-based parties. Opposition parties PAS (Parti Islam SeMalaysia) and PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat) and federal government’s UMNO (United Malays National Organization) place Islamic development at the centre of their objectives. Travel and tourism should have a purpose that is compatible with Islamic teachings like cultural tourism and nature tourism (Scott and Jafari, 2010). Attitudes towards tourism in Muslim countries vary (Zamani- Farahani and Henderson, 2010). Some countries discourage tourism (Iran) and allow only small groups of cultural tourists. Maldives isolates leisure tourism from the host community, while Turkey tolerates seaside hedonistic mass tourism. In tropical Malaysia, contrasting tourism planning and development appears at federal, state and local levels because of political struggles and overlapping centre/periphery opposition. Tourism is perceived as a means of development by UMNO and PKR, while PAS considers it cautiously. The divide appears also between rural states under PAS governance that have clearly refuted tourism, and

perceiving with suspicion. UMNO at the Federal level and PKR in the states under its jurisdiction have a pragmatic approach to tourism. However, their political struggle has given rise to competing strategies in tourism and branding. This appears clearly in the metropolitan area of Kuala Lumpur. Being federal territory, Kuala Lumpur, together with Putrajaya, is placed under the direct administration of the government (National Coalition with UMNO), while the suburbs are part of the State of Selangor (under the PKR opposition party).

A clustering policy has developed enclaves for incompatible activities using a similar strategy in Dubai. The containment policy is recommended with relaxed rules in nightlife and entertainment enclaves that cater to both visitors and the non- Muslim population. This strategy allows the city to have an Islamic face while satisfying global city aspirations. Kuala Lumpur with its tourists, nightlife, multicultural environment and global aspirations seems very remote from the more conservative states of Malaysia. However, the international press and media have long reported about political infractions, authoritarian rule and censorship. Social conservatism has also been frequently associated with the image of the country. For instance, religious fatwas were issued on practicing yoga for Muslims (2008), heavy metal rock bands and participation in pro- opposition party demonstrations (Doss, 2012), and pop and rock music concerts (Lady Gaga and so on) were cancelled because of the pressure of conservative groups.

Authorities are interpreting and representing contested identities in branding and tourism strategies. Under former Prime Minister Mahathir, the ‘Asian values’ rhetoric was a bet on nation building through economic growth of all communities while insisting on the primacy of the Malay interests in conjunction with the promotion of Islam. It was translated into a certain isolationism in tourism branding, favouring the traditional image of rural Malaysia, and focusing on the domestic market instead of the perceived risks of subversion from international tourists. The Islamic character of Kuala Lumpur is mentioned on tourist publications as guidelines towards

Bouchon

14 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

cultural sensibilities rather than a pull factor. Islam is represented by the ‘Blue’ mosque of Shah Alam and indirectly with Malay cultures, crafts, customs and traditions. But beyond religious architecture, the Islamic imagery of the country is not promoted in tourist publications aimed at global markets (Noor Hazarina et al, 2007).

Currently, the governmental agency Tourism Malaysia emphasizes on neutral areas: cultural diversity, culinary diversity, nature, modernity and service-minded. The evolution of focus on certain Special Interest Tourism (shopping, homestay, ecotourism …) has been according to the change of ministers of Tourism and the desired legacy. However, institutional branding, as underlined by Moutinho et al (1996), is the ‘guardian of the image’ and reflects governmental agenda and vision.

Tourism iconography portray harmony, colours and equal representation of the three main ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay and Indian) posing together with the official 1 Malaysia logo of communal race unity from the ruling coalition. The direct involvement of national politics in determining a ‘desired image’ is limiting the ability to portray the city’s unique soul. Some seem in opposition to the same ingredients for the creative global city to emerge: tolerance, culture, knowledge, heritage, ethnic and social diversity (Florida, 2002; Zenker, 2009). In favouring competitiveness, globalization affects the way the city projects itself. Two diverging and complex visions emerge. On one side, the global city discourse encourages the hybridization process from multiple cultures and diversity. It associates positive multiculturalism and encourages new creolized identities, which are avidly promoted in global cities. On the other side, the promotion of colourful ethnic groups and traditions represents an idealized heritage built on fixed communal identities. The tourism campaigns for Kuala Lumpur follow the official national branding of Malaysia as a country united in diversity, a diversity composed of separate ethic groups, namely, the Malays, Indians, Chinese and indigenous peoples. Unfortunately there seems to be no room for hybrids of any of these groups.

The economic and financial media try to emphasize the business-friendly environment in

the city, its infrastructure and the ease with which to conduct business. Impressive skyscrapers are still surrounded by major social differences that provide the impression of a divided society. The anxiety of not being backwards explains the quest for modernity as much as a profound disdain for heritage, which often appears under the traits of dilapidated colonial-era buildings. The travel media has a positive review of the city, especially from a destination-value perspective A growing number of visitors discover the hidden gem that is this city with five- star hotels among the cheapest in the world, a profusion of shopping malls and great food (Bindloss and Brash, 2008). Despite good tourism figures and reviews, the city’s self-confidence is ambivalent. Residents have mixed feelings of pride in the urban achievements and low expectations from the city’s tourism capabilities (Hairul et al, 2004). The city sees itself as culturally influenced, and rarely sees itself as being able to be a source of influence. The conflict splitting the society echoes a wider debate on the future of the city. The challenge to achieve a global city branding is the conflicting image which is the result of conflicting expectations.

RECOMMENDATIONS: NEED FOR A CONSCIOUS CITY BRANDING The city suffers from a lack of coherent image. ‘Malaysia’ and ‘Kuala Lumpur’ are interchangeable in the minds of the branding agents and the population (Lim and Neethiananthan, 2006). A growing awareness in developing a comprehensive urban system has incited the government to integrate the various administrative entities of the Klang Valley urban system to create a comprehensive Greater Kuala Lumpur (Economic Planning Unit, 2010) and a single destination branding. Until now, Greater Kuala Lumpur’s administrative and political fragmentation prevents from a single destination branding (Bouchon et al, 2009). Selangor Shines brand from Tourism Selangor ignores Kuala Lumpur, while in a reciprocating manner VisitKL promotes only the city centre. Both parties refuse to cooperate on a single branding of the city. Until now, Kuala Lumpur has depended on the national agency (Tourism Malaysia) for its promotion that have not pushed

Truly Asia and global city

15© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

the urban identity of the city. However, the global city agenda is likely to engage the rise of a distinct Kuala Lumpur brand, which contrasts with the rest of the country. It can be assumed that the global city agenda will force to create a specific Kuala Lumpur’s urban brand covering all its tourism system. Such a positioning could overcome the territorial and political fragmentation of the Greater Kuala Lumpur. However, the success of capturing the essence of the city lies in a conscious understanding of its identity.

A dedicated agency for the promotion of the Kuala Lumpur urban area, with a defined tourism strategy and involving the city’s stakeholders, such as residents and NGO’s, could reach a consensus on the branding identity of the city. In reality, the residents and tourists have facilitated the city’s branding through the free space of social media and Internet. User-created contents participate in staging the urban show and are able to have a brand new say on the city (Paskaleva-Shapira, 2007). Residents perceive the city as being itself and assume its glocalization: KLCC, Bukit Bintang, that area (…) it’s the modern part of the city. You don’t see much of western influence. I think it’s more modern Asia; where shopping malls are like sort of prime places (Bouchon, 2010). Kuala Lumpur with its demographics and identity is different from most of global cities where the dominant cultural places ethnic diversity as an exotic part of the urban décor. The redefinition of the Malaysian identity and the aspiration for unity might come through a closer look at Kuala Lumpur history, a Muslim and multicultural globalized city for more than a century. The fusion that may arise from this multicultural context is rarely acknowledged while it is producing the essence of the place, between fixed identities and hybridization.

CONCLUSION Kuala Lumpur’s branding has been largely associated and included within the colourful but general Malaysia, Truly Asia national tagline. Like other cities worldwide, the introduction of a global city agenda in official planning suddenly focuses on the city’s functionality and competitiveness and gives it a chance to be

recognized per se. But the city’s recognition as a global city status faces hurdles that are functional (attributes, economic index), institutional (administrative division), economic (middle- income trap), cultural (communalism) and political (censorship and so on). The challenge to achieve a global city branding is the conflicting images that are the results of conflicting expectations. The global city and the Islamic values in Kuala Lumpur fit easily within Hannigan’s Fantasy City components, although the branding efforts are not specifically spelt out. In clustering the global city’s offerings, the plan aims to cater different markets: a global city image with a safe liberal and creative environment and the restrained image of a destination suitable for families and Muslim visitors.

Kuala Lumpur, like Dubai or Istanbul (other candidates for global city status), is developing a modern infrastructure with physical attributes based on the models of Soja and Hanningan, and their specialized clusters. However, these non- western cities also share similar characteristics where the western-centric attributes are challenged and the expression of cultural relativism. The interpretation and practices in the global city appear culturally sensitive and echo the power of their identity, as defined by Castells, to reach a successful exercise in glocalization. Kuala Lumpur as a Muslim-majority city faces the challenge of accommodating different interpretations of what constitutes a global city that consequently question the definition of universal values. The imagery associated with the city is fixed in the ethnic groups living side by side and a mixture of odours and flavours. The possible fusion of cultures and the emergence of a unique hybridized urban culture expressed by a strong creativity have not yet materialized in the present Kuala Lumpur’s branding and imagery. The elusive soul of urban Malaysia may lie in its ability to absorb influences from outside the country’s borders, for example, telenovelas from Latin America, K-pop, Bollywood … yet remain shrouded in a veil of Islam. That makes it indeed the epitome of the oxymoronic Unique Global City. The main problem is the absence of a clear strategy of branding efforts, dominated by a

Bouchon

16 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

nationwide agenda, and undermined by locally disseminated and competing initiatives. The branding effort could be developed, integrating the Federal and State to offer a comprehensive branding of the Greater Kuala Lumpur destination’s assets, with a marketing and communication strategy involving stakeholders like residents. In acknowledging the diversity and the hybridization that result, it evolves beyond clichés of fixed monolithic identities. The construction of the urban brand could get a deeper rooting from its territories, its past, the essence of neighbourhoods and ethnic representation. While many global cities may share many similarities, because of its multicultural and multifaceted roots, KL has the potential to develop a distinct identity of its own.

REFERENCES Aaker, D.A. (2004) Brand Portfolio Strategy – Creating Relevance,

Differentiation, Energy, Leverage and Clarity. New York: The Free Press.

Amran, H. (2004) Policy and planning of the tourism industry in Malaysia. Paper presented at the 6th ADRF General Meeting, ADRF, Bangkok, Thailand.

Azevedo, A. (2004) Cities as Brands: The Role of Communication Strategy in Place Marketing Context. Lisbon, Portugal: Sop- com- Sociedade dos Medias.

Bindloss, J. and Brash, C. (2008) Kuala Lumpur Melaka & Penang. London: Lonely Planet Travel Guides.

Bouchon, F. (2010) Negotiating tourism and urban develop- ment in contested heritage area. A study of the historical nucleus of Kuala Lumpur. Paper presented at the 11th Inter- national Conference Joint World Cultural Tourism Conference, WCT, Hangzhou, China.

Bouchon, F. (2012) Kuala Lumpur, Metropolization and Globali- zation through the Mirror of Tourism: Challenges and Perspectives Department of Town Planning. Toulouse, France: University of Mirail.

Bouchon, F., Tung, L. and Lim, T.S. (2009) Sayangi Kuala Lumpur? Branding strategies for metropolitan areas. In: L. Dioko and X. Li (eds.). 3rd International Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing. Macau SAR, China, Institute For Tourism Studies (IFT).

Bunnell, T. (2002) Cities for nations? Examining the city – Nation-state relation in information age Malaysia. Interna- tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(2): 284–297.

Castells, M. (2010) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.

Department of Statistics. (ed.) (2009) Buku Tahunan Perangkaan – Yearbook of Statistics Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Department of Statistics.

Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. (2007) Kuala Lumpur City Plan, KLCP (Draft) 2020. In: Planning Unit, D. (ed.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur.

Doss, S. (2012) Fatwa, Malaysia and a Storm in a Teacup. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Malay Mail.

Economic Planning Unit. (2010) Tenth Malaysia Plan – Rancan- gan Malaysia Kesepuluh (2011–2015). In: Department, P.M. S. (ed.) Putrajaya, Malaysia: Economic Planning Unit.

Elsheshtawy, Y. (2010) Dubai: Behind an Urban Spectacle. New York: Routledge.

Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.

Friedman, T.L. (2006) The World is Flat. London: Penguin. Fukuyama, F. (2006) The clash of cultures and American hege-

mony. The American Interest Online. Washington DC. Gartner, W.C. (1996) Tourism Development: Principles, Processes

and Policies. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Hairul, I., Baum, T. and Kokranikkal, J. (2004) Urban Tourism

in Developing Countries: A Case of Malaysia. Glasgow: The Scottish Hotel School. University of Strathclyde.

Hall, C.M. (2005) Tourism. Rethinking the Social Science of Mobi- lity. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Hall, C.M. and Rath, J. (2006) Tourism, migration and place advantage in the global cultural economy. In: J. Rath (ed.) Tourism, Migration and Place Advantage in the Global Cultural Economy. London: Routledge.

Hamimah, H. (2008) Ten years after Asian Financial Crisis 1998: Tourism growth in Malaysia. Integration & Dissemination (Universiti Putra Malaysia) 2: 51–56.

Hannigan, J. (1998) Fantasy City. London: Routledge. Henderson, J.C. (2003) Managing tourism and Islam in penin-

sular Malaysia. Tourism Management 24(4): 447–456. Henderson, J.C. (2010) Islam and tourism: Brunei, Indonesia,

Malaysia and Singapore. In: J. Jafari and N. Scott (eds.) Tourism in the Muslim World. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Hsu, C., Killion, L., Brown, G., Gross, M.J. and Huang, S. (2008) Tourism Marketing, an Asia-Pacific Perspective. Milton: Wiley Australia.

Huntington, S.P. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G. (2008) Place marketing: How did we get here and where are we going? Journal of Place Management and Development 1(2): 150–165.

King, R. (2008) Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. Negotiating Urban Space in Malaysia. Singapore: NUS Press.

Knafou, R. and Duhamel, P. (2007) Mondes Urbains du Tourisme. Paris, France: Belin.

Kotler, P., Hamlin, M.A., Rein, I. and Haider, D.H. (2002) Marketing Asian places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia).

Lim, S. and Neethiananthan, A.R. (2006) Destination branding: ‘Malaysia Truly Asia’ from the Perspective of Foreign Tourists. Paper presented at the 1st Asia-Euro Conference, Taylor’s University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Lynch, K. (1994) L’image de la cité. Paris, France: Dunod. Malaysian Association of Hotels (MAH). (2011) Hotel Statistics

Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Marzuki, A. (2010) Tourism development in Malaysia, a review

on Federal government policies. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 8(17): 85–97.

Ministry of Tourism. (ed.) (2009) Malaysia tourism, key perfor- mance indicators, 2009. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Tourism.

Truly Asia and global city

17© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (2003) Advertising in Tourism and Leisure. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Malaysia MOT. (ed.) (2004) National Tourism Policy. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: MOT.

Moutinho, L., Rita, P. and Bruce, C. (1996) Expert Systems in Tourism Marketing. London: Routledge.

Nadeau, J., O’reilly, N. and Heslop, L. (2009) China’s olympic destination: Beijing tourist evaluations of China and the 2008 game. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing Institute for Tourism Studies. Macau, China.

Noor Hazarina, H., Murphy, J. and Nazlida, M.H. (2007) Islam and online imagery on Malaysian tourist destination websites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12: 1082–1102.

Ooi, C.-S. (2010) Creativity at work: Familiarity and uniqueness: Branding Singapore as a revitalized destination. Creative Encoun- ters Working Paper. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.

Paskaleva-Shapira, K.A. (2007) New paradigms in city tourism management: Redefining destination promotion. Journal of Travel Research 46(1): 108–114.

Pemandu. (ed.) (2010) Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: PEMANDU.

Pierre, J. (1999) Models of Urban governance: The institutional dimension of urban politics. Urban Affairs Review 34: 372–391.

Pike, S. (2008) Destination Marketing: An Integrated Marketing Communication Approach. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Prime Minister’s Department. (2011) Government transformation programme. Annual Report 2010. Putrajaya Malaysia, Per- formance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU).

Racine, J.-B. (2007) Villes, tourisme et élaboration d’images de marque: Recherches et partage d’une identité pour publicité du territoire. Les leçons du cas lausannois. Paper presented at the 6e Rencontres de Mâcon. Macon, France: Tourismes et territoires.

Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2005) Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management 27(6): 1209–1223.

Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2007) The creative turn in regen- eration: Creative spaces, spectacles and tourism in cities. In: M.K. Smith (ed.) Tourism, Culture & Regeneration. Cambridge: CABI.

Sassen, S. (ed.) (2007) Deciphering the Global: Its Scales, Spaces and Subjects. London: Routledge.

Scott, N. and Jafari, J. (eds.) (2010) Tourism in the Muslim World. Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Siti-Nabiha, W.N.A., Amran, A., Haat, H.C. and Abustan, I. (2008) Towards a Sustainable Tourism Management in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: University Sains Malaysia.

SPAD. (2011) Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley Public Transport Master Plan. Commission, L.P.T. (ed.). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: SPAD.

Tan, M. and Yeo, P.C. (2009) Creative Industries Development Strategy, Singapore. Creativity World Forum 2009. Ludwigs- burg, Germany.

TDC. (ed.) (1975) Malaysia Tourism Development Plan. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Trade and Industry.

World Travel & Tourism Council. (2011) Travel & Tourism Eco- nomic Impact, Malaysia. London: World Travel & Tourism Council.

Yeoh, B.S.A. (2005) The global cultural city? Spatial imagineer- ing and politics in the (Multi) cultural marketplaces of south- east Asia. Urban Studies 42(5/6): 945–958.

Zamani-Farahani, H. and Henderson, J.C. (2010) Islamic tour- ism and managing tourism development in Islamic societies: The cases of Iran and Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Tourism Research 12: 79–89.

Zawawi, I. (2004) Globalization and national identity: Managing ethnicity and cultural pluralism in Malaysia. In: Y. Sato (ed.) Growth and Governance in Asia. Honolulu, USA: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

Zenker, S. (2009) Who’s your target? The creative class as a tar- get group for place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development 2(1): 23–32.

Bouchon

18 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 10, 1, 6–18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.