its funny to find out the underlying logic that govern singapore's latest approach and strategy for her continued survival.

thrown into the mix are concepts of spaces of capital, urban survival, enterpreneuralism, competitiveness, market logics, flexibility (of labour force, of capital but also of geopolitical strategies), fluidity or mobility (ditto). but linking it all is a understanding of the inextricable spatial fixity of any kind of governance and market domination. and underlying a lot of these moves is an unabashedly economic drive. this might seem innocous but its attendant effects are great and multiplicitous. read naomi klein, david harvey, marx and engels, hegel, alan smith. listen to tay kheng soon.

its also funny to see that it seems to be a rite of passage that countries have to go through. it is typical and it is formulaic but it reduces the risk. nations too go through rites of passage like a terrible two turning into rebellious teen etc. one step behind the advanced capitalist nations to be the big fish in the small pond?

but what i really want to ask is:
how do architects figure in all of these?

i want to answer this.