IDENTITY BY DESIGN: ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENTS IN GLOBALIZING SINGAPORE Sub-theme: Culture and Identity ARCASIA FORUM 12 International Seminar Globalization and Asian Architecture 10-12 December, 2003, Dhaka, Bangladesh Habibul Haque Khondker Associate Professor Department of Sociology National University of Singapore E-mail: Habib@nus.edu.sg Abstract: According to Washington-based Foreign Policy Magazine’s Globalization Index of 2003, Singapore is the 4th most globalized country in the world. Singapore has been one of the most globalizing societies in the world since her inception. Singapore’s leaders in the wake of the country's independence took a proactive strategy towards globalization. Having met the goal of economic development and infrastructural development successfully, concerns were voiced over the presumed loss of identity in a homogenized world. In this phase of development, attention was paid to the issues of "nation", "culture" and "identity". However, it is one thing to be genuinely concerned about the loss of identity; it is another to use the symbol of "identity" and the preservation of "culture" and 'cultural identity" for pragmatic and instrumental reasons. Some skeptics pointed out that the restoration project of the old Chinatown, Serangoon or Little India, Malay Village, were more for attracting tourists and tourist dollars than for any genuine desire for cultural preservation. Others even saw in the deliberate “identity construction” discourse a political agenda of the ruling party. This paper will discuss the tension and negotiation that mark the development process in Singapore exploring the possibilities of creating or re-creating a national identity by design. Changes in the architectural style represent this indeterminacy of the issues of identity. It is argued that Singapore holds lessons – both positive and negative - for many developing countries on the road to economic success. Key Words: Singapore, architectural development, city, globalization, identity INTRODUCTION Wittgenstein once remarked that a language is like a city. It has an old part, a new section and a transitional space. In his words, “Our language can be seen as an old city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with addition from various periods; and this surrounded by a multitude of modern sections with straight regular streets and uniform houses” (quoted in Geertz, 1993:73). I would like to think that a city is like a language. A city usually has a grammar (rules), syntax (ordering principles) and a vocabulary (habitations). It also has a space for vitality, creativity. Like language, it has a structure and yet structuration as a process is also present. That is, cities like languages change. Some cities are sites of tourists’ gaze not habitations