The Management of Globalization in Singapore: Twentieth Century ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Marystella Amaldas., Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (Japan)the license withdrawal looked like a step backwards. Fridae.Com’s pull-out may have mollified the majority ofconservative Singaporeans but it does little to show theinternational community that the city-state is culturallyexciting.Lastly was Warwick University’s decision not to set upcampus in Singapore. According to reports, the EconomicDevelopment Board invited the British university, onaccount of its vibrant research culture, to set up campus onthe island. After months of deliberation and feasibilitystudies, the university turned down the invitation, citing itsconcern over both financial costs and the lack of academicfreedom in Singapore. Predictably, it was the latter issue thatdogged the headlines. Whether overblown or not, theperceived lack of academic freedom has had economicconsequences for Singapore. This is the first time that apotential investor has publicly cited Singapore’s famed outerboundary markers (OB-markers), its emphasis on nonconfrontationalacademic analysis, and the government’sintolerance for dissent, as reasons for not coming. Theconsequences of this on the city-state’s education hubambitions will only unfold later.These incidents suggest that a nation-state and aglobal city require different management ethos. Conventionalarguments for cultural and ideological protectionism may sitwell with the character of nation-states, but are increasinglyincongruent with the functions of global cities. And since aglobal city cannot be willed into being but becomes one onlywhen others recognize it as such, all global cities requirecultural legitimacy from the international community oftransnational professionals, creative classes, andinternational opinion-shapers who have the power to conferit recognition. The competition to distinguish oneself as aglobal city is, in reality, the competition to win legitimacyand recognition from this international community. The factthat Singapore’s survival as a nation-state depends on itsstatus as a global city means that the government has littlechoice but to constantly shift gears between the national andthe global when it comes to policymaking, thus compelling itto send mixed signals to this international community.Casinos are allowed but satellite dishes are not, toplesscabaret shows are permitted but civil disobedience is not,987
The Management of Globalization in Singapore: Twentieth Century Lessons for theEarly Decades of the New Centuryand the list goes on. These discrepancies are at the heart ofthe dilemma facing Singapore at the dawn of the 21 stcentury---globalizing at one’s own pace and terms may beprudent for a small nation-state, but how much of thisprudence can an aspiring global city afford?Though Singapore actively seeks to mediateglobalization’s side effects such as structural unemploymentand terrorism, the PAP government has also made boldstrides towards opening up the city-state. One of the maintalking points of 2005 was PM Lee’s 18 April announcementthat two casinos both incorporated in larger “IntegratedResorts” (IRs) were to be built by 2009. One located in thesouthern island of Sentosa, and the other in downtownMarina Bay, these two casinos, though taking up no morethan 3 to 5 per cent of the total floor area of the IRs, havepolarized Singaporean society. Although the government hadstoically opposed casinos in the past because it was thoughtthat their ill effects outweighed their economic advantages, itwas now believed that casinos, and the larger IRs, could helpto boost tourist figures, which have been generally decliningover the years. Both the casinos and the IRs were necessary,it was also argued, to combat the strait-laced and sterilereputation that the city-state had garnered. Anotherargument presented to the public was that Singaporeangamblers often flocked overseas, and sometimes to the highseas, to gamble, which resulted in an estimated S$1.8 billionto S$2 billion loss in potential revenue.The idea to build a casino on Singaporean soil wasfloated to the public in 2004. The latter half of 2004witnessed an island-wide debate on the casino issue with thenational newspaper, government policy institutions, andother feedback organizations providing ample space for theairing of views from both the pro-and anti-casino camps. Theissue stirred up strong views from conservative groups,religious organizations, and economic pragmatists alike, andit is hard to think of another national issue that hasgenerated the same amount of public interest andparticipation. Eventually the public debate congealed into asimplistic contest between the conservative moralists andeconomic pragmatists with the former associated withsoftness and dogmatism, and the latter with hard-headedrationalism.988
Page 2 and 3: Marystella Amaldas., Ritsumeikan As
Page 4: Marystella Amaldas., Ritsumeikan As
Page 9: The Management of Globalization in

The Management of Globalization in Singapore: Twentieth Century ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?