Introduction

This chapter takes up the issue of the dialectics between city and state by comparing three cities in Asia with differing positions in their relationship with states and with differing aspirations as regards becoming a global city These cities are Singapore, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur, in Malaysia. Unlike Singapore, which is both a city and a state, Malaysia represents a state that is unable to plausibly descale into a city (which then leads us to briefly consider Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's capital city). In contrast to both Singapore and Malaysia, Hong Kong represents a city that has (since the handover in 1997 to China) been co-opted back into a state. By placing our discussion in a comparative perspective, a more nuanced appreciation of the relationship between cities and states emerges, as well as the issues that need to be faced when striving for global city status.

We are not assuming that the cities and states discussed here are all necessarily interested in acquiring global city status. Rather, our goal is simply to bring out some of the identity-related issues that each might have to deal with, were they indeed so interested. Of course, each of the examples discussed here necessarily differs in the particular details. Nevertheless, it is important not to slip into a discussion of particularities, important though such details may be. Instead, we advance the argument that there are interesting generalities to be observed, which we discuss in the concluding section of this chapter.