It is playing host to the big World Bank-IMF conference and some 24,000 foreign delegates, and how it performs will contribute to – or slow down – its ambition to become another London, Paris or Tokyo.

Success is so important for Singapore that it has spent S$130mil on it, pulling out all the stops to make sure that the world bankers and leaders who are gathered here will leave with good lingering impressions.

The government called on its people to greet the world with “four million smiles”. Surrounding roads have been repaved and lined on both sides with flowers.

Private social escort firms are openly advertising the services of “young, energetic and intelligent girls” in the 20s for S$150-$200 an hour or S$1000 a night.

Squeezed by an emerging China, Singapore is trying to remake itself into a highly-skilled services hub and tourism centre. To do that, it wants to be a vibrant city of talent and this meeting provides a chance to showcase it.

If it is only about great facilities and efficient organisation, the World Bank-IMF meeting in Singapore would certainly be an unqualified success.

As a people, Singaporeans are learning that a global city takes more than just great infrastructure and hard work, which many other cities also possess.

It also requires an open mindset, adopting even practices that it may dislike. At any rate, Singapore cannot contrast too sharply with the world entity that it wants to be a part of.

The task of organising a mini United Nations is never easy.

Firstly, it was declared a target for terrorist bombing several years ago and that makes the work of protecting the large numbers of VIPs harder still.

Thick wire fencing, concrete blocks and high-tech scanners surround Suntec City and some of the nearby hotels. Security is so strict that shops are badly affected and Singaporeans working in nearby offices are complaining of long detours.

Just as troubling is the gap between Singapore’s strict regime and the two world organisations, which encourage participation by hundreds of NGO activists, including public protests.

Most Singaporeans had believed it was straighta forward business of serious bankers passing resolutions that affect everybody. That was the popular perception.

They have now learned this is not entirely true. There is also a tradition of encouraged participation by pressure groups, including public demonstrations that are totally forbidden here.

For Singapore, extending the ban to foreigners is a natural. For the World Bank-IMF, it breaks customs.

So when the government banned public protests and blacklisted, for “safety” reasons, 28 activists who had been accredited by the two bodies, it raised a strong protest.

The World Bank accused Singapore of breaching a formal agreement to accept accredited activists who, it said, had all been cleared by their national governments.

It appears that Singapore has toughened up its own position to allow some limited public protest. Only last year Raymond Lim, Second Minister for Finance and Foreign Affairs, promised that demonstrators who traditionally dog the meetings would not be kept out.

Asked if public protests would be allowed, he replied: “Absolutely, within the limits of the law. We can’t be prim and proper at all times.”

The angry reaction of the two organisations is understandable because they themselves have come under attack from large charity and social groups, including Oxfam and Friends of The Earth, who are threatening a boycott.

Singapore, however, insists it has the right to bar them because its priority is to protect lives and prevent public disorder.

The decision has been criticised by Singaporean liberals but not heartlanders who seem to support the government’s firm handling of potential troublemakers.

“I’ve read of street protests in other cities,” said a retiree. “Anyway, why should we allow foreigners to dictate to us what we should or should not do in our own country?”

By and large, Singaporeans are proud to host such a prestigious conference. The Washington-based World Bank and International Monetary Fund hold these annual meetings once every three years outside the US. Will it badly affect the outcome? Not much, the government says. It believes the controversy will blow over once the serious business of the meeting begins.

However, a World Bank director last week said Singapore’s action might affect the choice of future venues, implying that Singapore or any other restrictive city might not be selected.

But the reaction of the visitors ismixed. The majority expects a smooth and successful conference despite vastly reduced NGO participation.

Many delegates find the tough anti-terror measures reassuring and call Singapore a safe, efficient place to do business. “There’s so much energy in this city” or “They get things done quickly” are some of the initial comments.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has promised to do away with some of Singapore’s harsher laws and to liberalise society – but only gradually. He is nowhere as authoritarian as his father.

Singapore is, however, discovering just how different even strait-laced banking representatives in today’s world think and act compared to them.

How fast it is ready to change will decide its pace of progress towards becoming a global city of distinction.

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

                                                      Home