AHC: Put Singapore on the international level of New York/London

Follow-up on this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=363118

Compared to Toronto, Singapore has a higher chance of being in the Alpha++ category, as they are just below it(Alpha+).
Let's say Singapore still becomes independent, as per IOTL. What needs to happen from there for Singapore to be recognised as the city, other than New York and London?
Here is a map of Singapore:
singapore-political-map.jpg
 
It already is! Singapore stronk!! LKY died for your sins!!! :mad:

In all seriousness, Singapore's extremely steady 7% GDP growth rate is probably as wanked as possible - the only other country in the region to match its economic progress was Thailand, and they eventually fell behind as well. It's not as though some of Singapore's less liberal laws and mindsets have exactly curbed foreign investment or migration either.
 
It already is though. I swear Singapore is like this rare magical place that man makes from time to time having scratched and clawed its way through the muck to become the true economic heart of South East Asia
 
It already is though. I swear Singapore is like this rare magical place that man makes from time to time having scratched and clawed its way through the muck to become the true economic heart of South East Asia

It's just like real estate: Location, location, location. Singapore was going to be a major trading port once someone (IOTL the British Empire IIRC, but someone correct me on that if I'm wrong) discovered how useful it would be in a global economy, but there are a lot of things that could've really derailed Singapore's rise. Singapore could've been left with Malaysia/not kicked out, the idea of trying to create a new nationality could've been abandoned to having citizens of a particular ethnicity dominating the city-state, a more antagonistic relationship to Malaysia, someone more incompetent than Lee Kwan Yew taking power. Really, OTL is kind of a Singapore-wank.
 
Last edited:
Why is Conservatism a bad thing?:confused:
Because when taken too far it induces a kind of groupthink, which stifles innovation and hence wealth creation. If you don't want to change anything, you end up with a very static society which doesn't adapt to or create new technology.
It's important to distinguish conservatism (resistance to change) from Conservatism (a strain of right-wing politics) here - Margaret Thatcher for instance was both a Conservative and very radical indeed.
 
Singapore's biggest problem is that it's a city-state. It has no hinterland, and nowhere to grow. It is only an international city. If you look at London and New York, they both benefited from being basically the most important city in their respective strongest-empire-in-the-world. Both rose to power and loci of power; Singapore, on the other hand, is inherently a place that's on the way to somewhere. For example, Singapore has always been a major transport hub and transshipping hub, whereas New York and London were both major industrial centers (now take that, and make it metaphorical as well as literal!). That is, to say: no one goes to Singapore, they go through Singapore. That the Singaporean government and people found a way to tap all the wealth flowing past them and put it use is great, but it doesn't change the fact that they're not a source of a sink in a major way - or, at least, weren't historically.

Singapore also lacks cheap, reliable sources of labor or resources.

Perhaps the best solution would be to somehow keep Singapore in Malaysia but still allow the reforms that turned it into such a powerhouse...but your guess is as good as mine and how to do that.
 
Umm... what criteria are you using to rate cities, anyway? Singapore is as international as it could be as it is now, all while literally nosing on the ASB threshold. It could have went south in a lot of ways, with colonial-era corruption sticking like fungi or Malaysia impressing its bumiputera policy with impunity, etc...
 
Singapore's biggest problem is that it's a city-state. It has no hinterland, and nowhere to grow. It is only an international city. If you look at London and New York, they both benefited from being basically the most important city in their respective strongest-empire-in-the-world. Both rose to power and loci of power; Singapore, on the other hand, is inherently a place that's on the way to somewhere. For example, Singapore has always been a major transport hub and transshipping hub, whereas New York and London were both major industrial centers (now take that, and make it metaphorical as well as literal!). That is, to say: no one goes to Singapore, they go through Singapore. That the Singaporean government and people found a way to tap all the wealth flowing past them and put it use is great, but it doesn't change the fact that they're not a source of a sink in a major way - or, at least, weren't historically.

Singapore also lacks cheap, reliable sources of labor or resources.

Perhaps the best solution would be to somehow keep Singapore in Malaysia but still allow the reforms that turned it into such a powerhouse...but your guess is as good as mine and how to do that.
Maybe Singapore can pursue joining a confederation with Malaysia? Then "Greater Singapore" can cover the southern half of the Malay peninsula.
And if China never opens up Southeast Asia is almost certainly guaranteed an economic boost like South Korea.
 
Singapore's biggest problem is that it's a city-state. It has no hinterland, and nowhere to grow. It is only an international city. If you look at London and New York, they both benefited from being basically the most important city in their respective strongest-empire-in-the-world. Both rose to power and loci of power; Singapore, on the other hand, is inherently a place that's on the way to somewhere. For example, Singapore has always been a major transport hub and transshipping hub, whereas New York and London were both major industrial centers (now take that, and make it metaphorical as well as literal!). That is, to say: no one goes to Singapore, they go through Singapore. That the Singaporean government and people found a way to tap all the wealth flowing past them and put it use is great, but it doesn't change the fact that they're not a source of a sink in a major way - or, at least, weren't historically.

Singapore also lacks cheap, reliable sources of labor or resources.

Perhaps the best solution would be to somehow keep Singapore in Malaysia but still allow the reforms that turned it into such a powerhouse...but your guess is as good as mine and how to do that.

That would require a lot to subvert the bumiputera policy and assure Malays that meritocracy would benefit them rather than force them to suffer under Chinese economic domination. Given how two years of federation played out (along with political battles between UMNO's Alliance and the PAP), it's safe to say the Malaysians aren't all that keen to maintain that level of bloodshed, especially with the danger of having race riots spread from Singapore to the cities of Malaya.

Maybe Singapore can pursue joining a confederation with Malaysia? Then "Greater Singapore" can cover the southern half of the Malay peninsula.
And if China never opens up Southeast Asia is almost certainly guaranteed an economic boost like South Korea.

We did... Didn't work out. :confused:

If anything, any attempt to approach Malaysia with another merger would demote us to the status of other Malaysian states, complete with racial favouritism and active attempts by Kuala Lumpur to promote peninsular interests at our expense. The deal we got out of Merger in 1963 guaranteed a lot of special conditions that set us apart from other states (e.g. non-interference in Malaysian politics by local Singaporean parties and vice versa), as well as the promise of a common market. Most were pretty much scrapped on the onset.
 
Singapore's biggest problem is that it's a city-state. It has no hinterland, and nowhere to grow.
So give it one? If Britain were to never recognise the Sultanate of Johor or one of the Sultans did something naughty, in the eyes of the British, and they annex them later then they'd probably just be administered as part of the Straits Settlement. Later on when Singapore goes its own way it takes Johor, and possibly Malacca, along with them.


NY/London are both way more ancient than Singapore. Isn't it international enough?
That's really more to do with age of the place rather than the criteria economists use to define a global city though.
 
Follow-up on this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=363118

Compared to Toronto, Singapore has a higher chance of being in the Alpha++ category, as they are just below it(Alpha+).
Let's say Singapore still becomes independent, as per IOTL. What needs to happen from there for Singapore to be recognised as the city, other than New York and London?
Here is a map of Singapore:
singapore-political-map.jpg
I agree that Singapore has a slightly greater chance of reaching the level of New York and London than does Toronto, but it still has a long way to go. The ranking you quote is only one ranking of many, and the "alpha+" category is incredibly broad. I already posted this in the other thread, but I will post it here, too. This is a meta-ranking of global/world cities. In other words, it is a ranking of cities by how often they appear, and in what order, on the most common various rankings of global cities.

Screen%20Shot%202012-05-07%20at%204.07.49%20PM.png

Singapore has only 31% of the score of New York, 35% of London's score, and 41% of Tokyo's score. Singapore only has 60% of the score of Hong Kong, which is, I think, a somewhat similar city. In other words, I think it would take a quite large PoD, or a series of them, to make Singapore approach the New York and London league.
So give it one? If Britain were to never recognise the Sultanate of Johor or one of the Sultans did something naughty, in the eyes of the British, and they annex them later then they'd probably just be administered as part of the Straits Settlement. Later on when Singapore goes its own way it takes Johor, and possibly Malacca, along with them.
I think an economic hinterland is more important than just giving the city room to expand, though. London originally grew as the major financial hub of England, then Great Britain, and finally the Empire. New York had as its hinterland much of the mid-Atlantic region, and served as the most important gateway to oceanic trade with Europe. Tokyo/Yokohama was the economic gateway to the entire Kanto region, and serviced much or even most of the trade between Japan and the Americas. Chicago grew by using much of the upper Midwest as its economic hinterland, and facilitating trade between it and the East Coast (via the Great Lakes). Hong Kong grew because it serviced so much of the trade between China and other nations, using a vast swath of southeastern China as its economic hinterland. Singapore really just has Singapore. It can and has benefit enormously from the trade passing through the Straits, but to become as economically important as the cities I listed above, I think it would help if it was the city and port of choice was a large rural and manufacturing region within the same fiscal and economic framework.
 
Last edited:
Top