In the final decades of the twentieth century, Singapore has faired extremely well. It grew from an entrepot centre to an industrialized state and global city (Amaldas 985). It tackled most matters related to underdevelopment and had constructed the required institutions to organize its continued existence in the twenty-first century. This paper discusses the main challenges, the solutions and the future prospects for this small nation. Challenges Facing Singapore The regular oscillation amid being locally specific and globally open has resulted to the Singapore absurdity (Hirst and Thompson 37). The protectorate enjoys its rank as a globalized nation, yet it frequently acquires disapproval from global human rights organizations for its persistence on practicing its personal politics, whereby infringement of some civil freedoms in sight of local multi-religious and multiethnic authenticities takes place. The application of discriminatory globalization articulates the need to stay globally linked for the benefit of state survival, and the need to preserve certain concepts of conservatism and convention, which defend definite overriding interests. The PAP administration carries out discriminatory globalization. It is too open to fiscal globalization, thus closing its doors to open-minded democratic procedures and institutions. The administration has thrived in settling global forces and has arbitrated the exterior pressures and demands on the local. A number of actions in 2005 put forward that this conciliation and arbitration may have implications for its global city aspirations. In 2005, the administration of Singapore denied ‘Fridae. Com’ a gay entrance, the entertainment authorization to hold its yearly Nation Party (Amaldas 986). The group reacted by transferring its yearly party to Phuket. For a regime that admits that there exist homosexuals in the government, the warrant removal seemed like stride backwards. The pull-out by this group might have pacified the mainstream of conformist Singaporeans, although it does small to explain to the global society that the city-state is culturally thrilling. Another incidence was Warwick University’s resolution not to establish a university in Singapore (Amaldas 986). Following months of reflection and viability studies, the campus rejected the offer, citing its apprehension over both fiscal costs and the deficiency of academic liberty on the island. As usual, it was the second concern that persisted in the captions. Whether exaggerated or not, the professed short of academic liberty has had fiscal costs for Singapore. This is the first incidence whereby a prospective investor has openly quoted Singapore’s popular outer OB-markers, its stress on non stimulating academic analysis, and the regime’s bigotry for opposition, as rationales for rejecting the offer. The effects of this on the city-state’s learning hub aspirations will only unfurl later. The verity that Singapore’s continued existence as a nation-state relies on its position as a global city implies that the regime has few options but to change gears amid the global and the national, during policy formulation, thus forcing it to convey mixed gestures to the global society. While Singapore vigo