The Singapore identity is destined to be a schizophrenic one. It is characterised by the conflicting demands of the nation-state and global city, both of which require different social psyche and anticipation to thrive.

The global city, on one hand, demands the all out attraction of foreign talent and global capital while the nation-state, on the other, is anxious that they do not displace citizens.

The global city, in theory, benefits from perfect exposure to all dimensions of globalisation, including the influx of illegal migrant workers who perform crucial low-skill tasks, while the nation-state has always found it politically expedient to pick and choose globalisation processes, keeping out specific influences.

The global city celebrates the smorgasbord of alternative cultural identities and lifestyles because they provide creative buzz which often translates to economic gains, while the nation-state must dedicate itself to the never-ending and steady task of nation-building.

While the global city/nation-state dichotomy presented here is simplified, it cannot be denied that these contradictions activate conflicting impulses. Singapore the global city offers topless-dancing, R-rated movies, casinos and other risque delights, while Singapore the nation-state strives to keep these activities physically confined to downtown venues and symbolically away from the pristine 'heartlands', in order to preserve the national myth of folksy goodness and working class purity.

Does our priority lie first with the nation-state or the global city?

Unlike global cities with links to hinterlands, Singapore forgoes the luxury of retreat from city-life into the rural. And it is in the rural, the rugged countryside and the pastoral past that countries trawl for stories and narratives to manufacture the myths of heritage and tradition that ultimately feed into concepts of nationhood.

The global city, in contrast, is defined by constant change and competing narratives.

To make matters more complicated, Singapore can survive only if both the nation-state and global city progress in tandem. It would not do if either developed parasitically at the expense of the other. It does us no good if Singapore matures as a nation-state while it declines as a global city, or if we are severed from the world economy. The fact that Singapore began modern life first as a global entrepot attests to the importance of global relevance for its existence.

Conversely, it would not do if the global city prospered at the expense of the nation-state. Were that to happen, national identity would wither.

Capital accumulation would be revered with little thought to equitable wealth distribution. Without nation-state responsibilities and appeal to citizenry rights, there would be little incentive to assist those below the poverty line or ethnic minorities, leaving society open to socio-political tensions.

Unlike the global city that thrives on the efficient exploitation of labour and the strategic deployment of capital, the nation-state requires a different paradigm if it is to succeed.

So where does this predicament leave us then? So far, we have managed to slice through this impasse with a 'buy one get one free' approach. Policy-makers have told foreign talent that in addition to a vibrant global city, they will also be getting a safe, clean and comfortable country to raise their families.

Conversely, footloose Singaporeans have been told that they have a nation-state plus a global city for the arts, a financial centre, an education hub, an aviation hub, a medical hub and so on.

As good bargains go, this approach has, however, not been able to reconcile the tensions between the identities of the global city and nation-state. And what Singapore means to you may depend on your education, job and life-chances.

Low-skilled and poorly educated Singaporeans will depend on the robustness of national identity and its concomitant citizenry rights for security. The nation-state offers them proetction in the form of state assistance and welfare programme. Many will have little to do with the business of the global city.

The lower-middle class, on the other hand, is wary, because the global city attracts immigrants who will work for less or because their jobs have been outsourced.

Not poor enough to qualify for state assistance, this group will believe that the duties of citizenship outweigh its rewards. In the past, this group would be firmly rooted to the country because they lack the means to immigrate, but today, anecdotal evidence suggests that Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia may become attractive options.

Better educated Singaporeans with globally transferable skills will benefit more in a global city where their talents are financially rewarded and where greater clustering of professionals will provide a more salient concept of identity than national citizenship.

The fear is that these groups may eventually grow further apart and even become antagonistic towards each other.

Although these groups above are simple classifications for the purpose of illustration, we would do well to remember the tensions that run through our society as well as the contradictions between the global city and the nation-state, even as we aspire to be both.