Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in Singapore's Global City

Introduction: Defining Nationalism

This paper analyzes and explores the concept of nationalism in Singapore by examining different steps and measures taken by its government, including the promotion of the National Day Parade. To understand this phenomenon, it is important first to define nationalism.

Nationalism was long considered a historical concept and was largely ignored by political philosophy. Its importance revived in political discourse over the last two decades. In recent years, growing concerns for international justice have shifted focus away from nationalism toward global governance. Issues of terrorism, the clash of civilizations, and struggles for supremacy have come to dominate international political attention. According to Graham Evans and Jeffrey Newnham in the Dictionary of International Relations, the term "nationalism" carries two meanings: it can identify a behavioral entity in which people pursue certain political and cultural goals, or it can describe a sentiment of loyalty toward the nation shared by people with pride.

The concept of nationalism thus draws attention to the idea of the nation and to the behavior of people in response to its various attributes. It relates to the attitudes of a nation's members toward their national identity and to the actions they take in pursuit of political, cultural, and religious freedom. Despite its numerous and conflicting definitions in political thought, nationalism retains a firm grounding in historical concepts of collective identity. It is built on the legitimacy of the nation's claim to individual loyalty and sovereignty in political programs. Territorial sovereignty — as a constituent of state power and authority — is considered critical to nationhood. In an era of globalization, where nations are composed of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, and geographical locations, control over financial resources and the right of people to participate in territorial sovereignty has become a central issue in the political science of nationalism.

The classical nationalist views prominent in the nineteenth century — and later influential in European and Latin American nations — held that the territorial state as a political unit should be associated with people from the same ethnic and cultural group, who are collectively responsible for protecting and propagating their traditions. The liberal nationalist Ernest Renan defined national identity as people coming together to lead independent lives, guided by liberal democratic political ideals and a shared national identity that gives life meaning and order (Lim, 2011).

The Concept of a Nation

Liberal nationalism defines the nation as an association of people who regard themselves as belonging to it with equal political rights and shared political procedures. Civic nationalism, by contrast, holds that a nation is not defined by ethnic descent but is a political entity whose fundamental identity transcends ethnicity. This conception is illustrated in Ernest Renan's famous 1882 lecture "What Is a Nation?", in which he described the nation as a "daily referendum" — dependent on the ongoing desire of its people to live together.

Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism

Nationalism is collectively described as a multifaceted set of attitudes, claims, and directives attributed to fundamental political, moral, and cultural values associated with the nation and national identity. In its moderate sense, nationalism can be understood as patriotism — loyalty to the state — and as the feeling of belonging to a common nation whose members share a sense of unity. Cosmopolitanism, by contrast, holds that the primary obligation of all people is the fulfillment of common human goals, irrespective of geographical or cultural differences, and that political structures should reflect this universality of moral obligation. Many political theorists have grappled with the tension between nationalism and cosmopolitanism, often adopting a mixed philosophy. As Charles Taylor observed, "we have no choice but to be cosmopolitan and patriots" (ibid, 121).

According to Ernest Gellner, nations and nationalism are contingent phenomena that vary with factors including culture, religion, societal norms, unity, faith, discipline, and morals. A state can emerge as a nation only when people within a group share common ideas about independence and interdependence. Culture — understood as a system of ideas expressed and transmitted across generations — gives rise to the nation, which is then recognized through shared attributes passed on by the majority. The representatives of every nation bear great responsibility, because their direction shapes the nation's future. Whenever a nation progresses or declines, responsibility falls largely on its leaders (Gellner, 1983).

This paper explores the hypothesis that the Singapore government is keen to embrace the label of a "global city" rather than a country — prioritizing the persuasion of its citizens to welcome foreigners over the promotion of nationalism. The alternate hypothesis is that Singapore will lack the resolve to fully realize this shift away from nationalism. Both positions are examined and evidence is presented for the conclusion.

Singapore's Political Environment and Global City Status

Singapore's leaders have made active contributions to national progress and communicated their goals through actions, speeches, and writings. Managing a diverse, globally integrated society is a challenging task. When a country's population comes from varied backgrounds — each group pursuing its own interests and long-term survival — national identity is in a vulnerable state. Singapore's political framework has consistently sought to cultivate a mindset of "national survival" among its people, committing them to the common goal of progress and prosperity.

Political leaders have encouraged rational decision-making grounded in intellectual capacity and have treated government as an instrument for promoting national harmony. Senior leaders who possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and experience are regarded as best placed to make decisions and solve national concerns. Strategic policy measures have been central to Singapore's political system. Brigadier General (Reserve) Lee Hsien Loong, for instance, addressing threats to national survival posed by declining birth rates, stated: "I don't think we should … passively watch ourselves going extinct." Such attitudes reflect a governing culture in which proactive policy is seen as essential to national unity (Nash, 2001).

Singapore is an island of approximately 250 square miles situated between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. It is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and it is widely recognized as an example of a successful multiethnic society combining Western political influence with Eastern cultural adaptation. Singapore ranks seventh among the world's most global cities and is well known as a hub for international trade, business, and finance. Its government is considered consistent, well-organized, and conducive to a business environment, attracting investment from across the globe (Popke, 2011).

Cultural adaptability has allowed Singapore to emerge as a global economy with a diverse social structure. Ethnic harmony and religious tolerance prevail in the region, reinforcing the economic framework. While Singapore has experienced some ethnic tensions involving immigrants from China, Malaysia, and South Asia, it has been adept at formulating ethnic policy to manage these conflicts. Since independence it has emerged as a global city whose population comes from diverse backgrounds and ethnic groups. Singapore has consistently respected this diversity and encouraged citizens to identify with the slogan "one country, one nation, one fate."

Singapore has long been confident in its "oriental democratic system," founded on a one-party framework emphasizing political and social stability, government transparency, and devoted citizenship — all aimed at economic development. The country's original Confucian cultural heritage was reinterpreted to address the demands of modern governance, with its norms redefined as follows:

Since independence on 9 August 1965, the People's Action Party (PAP) has dominated Singapore's political structure. In its early years the PAP dealt with communist challenges; in recent decades it has governed within a social democratic framework. PAP rule has been characterized as authoritarian, pragmatic, transparent, and legalistic. The administrative structure is more bureaucratic than democratic: appointments are made on the basis of meritocracy, with authority delegated from top to bottom and economic development maintained through PAP guidance.

There are three main opposition parties: the Worker's Party (WP), the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA). Other active parties include the Democratic Progressive Party, the National Solidarity Party, the People's Liberal Democratic Party, Singapore's People's Party, the Singapore Justice Party, and the Singapore National Front.

The ministries and organs of Singapore are governed by the civil service through the Public Service Commission (PSC), which is responsible for appointing, confirming, promoting, transferring, dismissing, and disciplining public officers. Singapore, with its racial and religious pluralism, is committed to the fair treatment of all citizens and regards providing equal opportunity in education, healthcare, and housing as a primary duty. Minority groups are assured equal representation in parliament through the Group Representation Constituency system. The dominant role of government in the local economy has not undermined systemic transparency; rather, government has been an active contributor to economic development, social justice, and the maintenance of plurality in society.

Singapore has been criticized for the paradox of being "democratic without freedom." Since independence it has always been governed by a single party, the PAP. The fusion of authoritarianism and democratic structure is rooted in the country's Chinese cultural heritage, given that ethnic Chinese account for approximately 70% of the total population. This demographic reality has embedded Confucian socio-political ethics — including patriarchal and hierarchical values — into Singapore's socio-political value system.

The patriarchal system manifests in the absolute role of government in political power and authority. The government actively structures cultural values and religious rights, and takes corrective action when activities are deemed contrary to the national interest. Singapore's governing philosophy strongly favors rule by what it regards as the cream of society. Nevertheless, the strict law enforcement system has not prevented change and advancement. The government has consistently provided opportunity to leaders from meritocratic backgrounds — regardless of ethnic origin, culture, or creed — who possess the skills and knowledge required to govern effectively.

Conclusion

Singapore, with its pluralistic socio-political system, has emerged as a "global city." This has posed various pressures on the economy and political framework of the region. Its cosmopolitan and nationalist orientations have both drawn on the diverse territorial integration of its population, enabling the country to rank highly in international business and economic competitiveness. The political structure is based on meritocracy: appointments are made through a bureaucratic system that privileges skill, knowledge, experience, and loyalty to the nation rather than through a voting system that might afford undue advantage to the majority group at the expense of minorities. Policies are adopted under the supervision of the People's Action Party, which has been widely criticized as authoritarian. Yet this culture is deeply rooted in Chinese cultural heritage and has evolved with the advancement of the political system over time. The central focus of all government policies has been "national harmony" and national progress, irrespective of the culture, race, religion, or ethnic group to which citizens belong.

National unity and harmony require the empowerment of both people and government in policy formulation and active civic participation. Institutional development is critical to this success, and Singapore has recognized this clearly. It has identified that building a strong educational system is essential for producing the leaders of tomorrow and sustaining the economic well-being of society. No nation can meet the challenge of international competition if its population lacks the education to fulfill global requirements and the awareness to respond to change. The global market increasingly sees Singapore as a hub of opportunity, and skilled workers, investors, and business ventures from around the world will continue to engage with the state. Singapore must therefore maintain its status as a global city by adhering to the principles of nationalism while also drawing on the doctrine of cosmopolitanism — embracing the plurality of society and the diversity of its intellectual and physical resources.

In light of this analysis, the phenomenon of nationalism in Singapore appears to be fragile and contingent — more a temporary posture than a durable foundation for identity in an enduringly cosmopolitan city-state.

References

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 6–7.

Lim, S. (2011). Singapore as a global city: A balancing act. Retrieved from

Nash, K. (2001). The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Wiley-Blackwell, p. 391.

Popke, J. (2007). Geography and ethics: Spaces of cosmopolitan responsibility. Progress in Human Geography, 31(4), pp. 509–518.

Tamir, Y. (1993). Liberal Nationalism. Princeton University Press.

Miller, D. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford University Press.