2011/2012, Sem 1

SSA2211 Evolution of a Global City-State

Tutorial 4: Singapore as Global City or Nation-State?
In what ways has Singapores role as a hub evolved over time? Which is a more appropriate term for Singapore: global city or nation-state? PART 1: Understanding globalisation The following two readings both provide a discussion of Singapore as a global city. The first reading (by S.Rajaratnam) was written in the 1970s, the second reading is by Geographer Nathalie Fau and was published in a 2010. Bear this timeframe in mind when you are reading these materials. READ: Singapore: Global City written in 1972 by Singapores Minister for Foreign Affairs, S. Rajaratnam [in IVLE E-Reserves]. Nathalie Fau, Singapores Strategy of Regionalisation in Karl Hack and Jean-Louise Margolin (eds) Singapore from Temasek to the 21st Century: Reinventing the Global City (Singapore:NUS Press, 2010), pp. 76-82. 1) How did Rajaratnam define a Global City? 2) Rajaratnam saw the Global City as being completely new concept for Singapore in the

1970s. Based on what you have learnt in SSA2211, do you agree?

3) How does Fau explain the way the term Global city has developed over time? What

other examples of global cities are provided?

4) In what ways would being a Global City help Singapore overcome economic

challenges?
PART 2: global city vs. nation-state? Read The Great Identity Conundrum, TODAY, 9 August 2006 (appended below). Recall the discussion from Tutorial 1 on National Education, and how its aim is to strengthen national identity for Singapore as a nation-state. 1) What is the purpose of national identity for Singapore? 2) Are there tensions between being a global city and being a nation state? 3) Which concept is more appropriate for Singapore today: global city or nation-state? 4) Which storyline of Singapores history emphasises the global city identity, and which

storyline the nation-state identity?

2011/2012, Sem 1 TODAY 9 August 2006 THE GREAT IDENTITY CONUNDRUM ---------------------------Education, job, life-chances colour how S'poreans face up to conflicting demands of a global city and nation-state by Terence Chong THE Singapore identity is destined to be a schizophrenic one. It is characterised by the conflicting demands of the nation-state and global city - both of which require different social psyche and anticipation to thrive. The global city, on one hand, demands the all-out attraction of foreign talent and global capital while the nation-state, on the other, is anxious that they do not displace citizens. The global city, in theory, benefits from perfect exposure to all dimensions of globalisation, including the influx of illegal migrant workers who perform crucial low-skill tasks, while the nation-state has always found it politically expedient to pick and choose globalisation processes, keeping out specific influences. The global city celebrates the smorgasbord of alternative cultural identities and lifestyles because they provide creative buzz which often translates to economic gains, while the nationstate must dedicate itself to the never-ending and steady task of nation-building. While the global city/nation-state dichotomy presented here is simplified, it cannot be denied that these contradictions activate conflicting impulses. Singapore the global city offers topless-dancing, R-rated movies, casinos and other risque delights, while Singapore the nation-state strives to keep these activities physically confined to downtown venues and symbolically away from the pristine "heartlands", in order to preserve the image of folksy goodness and working class purity. Does our priority lie first with the nation-state or the global city? Unlike global cities with links to hinterlands, Singapore forgoes the luxury of retreat from citylife into the rural. And it is in the rural, the rugged countryside and the pastoral past that countries trawl for stories and narratives to manufacture the myths of heritage and tradition that ultimately feed into concepts of nationhood. The global city, in contrast, is defined by constant change and competing narratives. To make matters more complicated, Singapore can survive only if both the nation-state and global city progress in tandem. It would not do if either developed parasitically at the expense of the other. It does us no good if Singapore matures as a nation-state while it declines as a global city, or if we are severed from the world economy. The fact that Singapore began modern life first as a global entrepot attests to the importance of global relevance for its existence.

2011/2012, Sem 1 Conversely, it would not do if the global city prospered at the expense of the nation-state. Were that to happen, national identity would wither. Capital accumulation would be revered with little thought to equitable wealth distribution. Without nation-state responsibilities and appeal to citizenry rights, there would be little incentive to assist those below the poverty line or ethnic minorities, leaving society open to socio-political tensions. Unlike the global city that thrives on the efficient exploitation of labour and the strategic deployment of capital, the nation-state requires a different paradigm if it is to succeed. So where does this predicament leave us then? So far, we have managed to slice through this impasse with a "buy one get one free" approach. Policy-makers have told foreign talent that in addition to a vibrant global city, they will also be getting a safe, clean and comfortable country to raise their families. Conversely, footloose Singaporeans have been told that they have a nation-state plus a global city for the arts, a financial centre, an education hub, an aviation hub, a medical hub and so on. As good bargains go, this approach has, however, not been able to reconcile the tensions between the identities of the global city and nation-state. And what Singapore means to you may depend on your education, job and life-chances. Low-skilled and poorly-educated Singaporeans will depend on the robustness of national identity and its concomitant citizenry rights for security. The nation-state offers them protection in the form of state assistance and welfare programme. Many will have little to do with the business of the global city. The lower-middle class citizens, on the other hand, are likely to be wary. They are not poor enough to qualify for state assistance but feel the threat from outsourcing as well as the cheaper immigrant workers that the global city attracts. They probably wonder if the duties of citizenship outweigh its rewards or whether emigration to Thailand, Indonesia or Malaysia is a more attractive option. Better educated Singaporeans with globally transferable skills will benefit more in a global city where their talents are financially rewarded and where greater clustering of professionals will provide a more salient concept of identity than national citizenship. My fear is that these groups may eventually grow further apart and even become antagonistic towards each other. Although these groups above are simple classifications for the purpose of illustration as we celebrate our 41st National Day, we would do well to remember the tensions that run through our society as well as the contradictions between the global city and the nation-state, even as we aspire to be both. The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies. This is a personal comment.