Singapore’s rise from trading port to a financial powerhouse hinged on a single strategy: building beyond its borders. Why? As a means of building its external economy and enhancing its trade flows to the wider world.
From the Suzhou Industrial Park to industrial townships across India and Vietnam, the city-state has a history of exporting its industrial planning and policy expertise. But with economic growth plateauing and land constraints, it’s got to seek new models.
And one approach could be charter cities co-developed abroad. Newly created urban areas governed by specially designed legal and administrative frameworks — examples include Prospera and Morazan, called Zones for Employment and Economic Development (ZEDE) in Latin America’s Honduras — are economic instruments that foster investment, innovation, and economic development.
Constitutional scholar Benjamen Gussen, who proposed a Singaporean charter city in Australia back in 2017 under the working title “Dilga” in Western Australia, proposes a similar ambitious export of Singapore’s governance model.
His idea? Treaty-anchored, special-purpose cities built overseas, with Singapore as co-architect and equity partner. Unlike free trade agreements (FTAs) or traditional industrial parks, these charter cities would possess sovereignty-grade economic autonomy. In short, they could function as labs for talent mobility, capital deployment, innovation and sustainable urban engineering.
Gussen’s concept is that Singapore use charter cities to shape new supply chains and growth corridors. Singapore Inc. can leverage its experience with developing industrial estates elsewhere to serve dual purposes. It can create offshore job markets for Singaporean talent, drive local employment, as well as expand its financial reach.
Industrial Parks to Treaty Cities
Traditional overseas projects focused on industrial development and infrastructure exports. Charter cities expand this into full urban governance that operates as a self-contained economic organism. This approach blends regulatory autonomy with corporate governance.
Charter cities as such are fundamentally constituted via treaty, backed by joint equity from state and private investors. They are then governed by a bespoke constitution comparable to Hong Kong’s Basic Law.
Gussen frames this as part of a “post-unitary, post-federal world order” that positions cities, rather than states, as primary engines of economic governance. These function as “living organisms” that adapt and evolve through charter-mandated flexibility. Charter cities are thus in a category beyond special economic zones (SEZs) or FTAs, being closer to a regulated state-like enterprise.
With projects like Morazan and Prospera, Gussen observes: “These were cities proposed or motivated by the work of Paul Romer, a famous American economist. There was a mixed reception, especially in Honduras, due to constitutional concerns.
“To summarise, many believed this represented a new wave of colonialism—building a new Hong Kong and effectively colonising part of Honduras. This could create conflict between the national government and the city.
“From my perspective, it is still a mixed picture. My ideas for Dilga are not envisioned in the same way Romer envisaged his city. Mine is closer to Singapore, although getting there will be gradual. We are looking at a decade of developing skills and capacity before moving towards something like a nation-state, or complete sovereignty and independence.
“There are different possibilities and designs. I wouldn’t say one is better than another—just different,” he concludes.
The Dilga Proposal: A joint Singapore–Australia city
Gussen’s idea of a joint Australia-Singapore city in Dilga could be sited in resource-rich Western Australia. This allows business clustering, with value-added industries forming downstream. Such a venue could play host to industries involving hydrogen, steel, batteries and critical minerals, or digital and financial services.
According to Gussen’s model, Singapore doesn’t claim sovereignty. Instead, its contribution would be knowledge, capital and regulatory partnership. Additionally, it remains Australian territory.
Crucially, this avoids any perception that sovereignty has been transferred: “Dilga remains Australian territory. No UN statehood claim is made or implied,” Gussen clarifies.
The preferred constitutional pathway is a combined approach — a Section 111 surrender by Western Australia, followed by federal territory status under Section 122 and a Singapore–Australia treaty to enshrine Dilga’s Basic Law.
The academician explains: “In terms of my Dilga idea and the constitutional space, it would start with an international treaty between, for example, Singapore and Australia. This would be deposited and protected by the United Nations. It would then evolve and potentially snowball into something similar to Singapore.”
“We are not thinking of it as a colony. It would not mirror the British-Hong Kong relationship. Instead, it would be a multi-partner collaboration to build the city. As it grows, it would increasingly resemble a nation-state at the city level,” he adds.
Dilga is structured around a chartered city-corporation model that possesses its own “…treasury, currency, monetary authority, and enterprise portfolio”. But under Australian sovereignty and treaty-anchored autonomy in specific fields.
Gussen suggests this approach allows Singapore to deploy its institutional state capital and the funds of its private enterprise sector beyond conventional investment routes. The equity composition would also be split across Singaporean and Australian sovereign investors, as well as private sector investors. As for why this could work in Australia?
“Australia’s capitals function as primate city‑regions. State politics systematically over‑provide local public goods to capital mega‑regions, drawing population inwards and leaving regional Australia behind. The population‑distribution ratio (outside: inside capital) trends downward like a ‘hockey‑stick’ since Federation.”
“Dilga is designed as a second growth pole: a deliberate agglomeration node that relieves pressure on Perth while staying within Australia’s constitutional framework,” he elaborates.
Jobs & Talent: Singaporean labour, influence abroad
This model potentially opens new talent pathways for Singaporeans. Its scope? Urban governance, sustainability, infrastructure finance, and advanced manufacturing are all possibilities.
Rather than relocate HQs abroad, the city-state can anchor regional talent deployment through governance roles in co-developed cities. This would be coupled with immigration managed via performance-based, city-specific permits. This is distinct from national entry frameworks.
Gussen frames it as corporate human resources (HR). He elaborates: “Create a Dilga Resident Permit (DRP) for city‑only residence/work. Australian entry beyond the perimeter requires a separate national visa.”
“Two lanes to nationality: (i) Dilga citizenship (local franchise and domicile rights, not Australian nationality); (ii) a host‑controlled quota pathway to Australian PR/citizenship for top performers. A short‑stay Singapore–Dilga visa waiver can be included for business talent, with work rights governed locally,” he adds.
This mechanism minimises political backlash in host nations. Concurrently, it allows high-performing talent to graduate into broader economic roles.
As for its financial architecture, encompassing currency, prudential controls and payments? Dilga could operate its own local currency (DIL), wholly-backed by foreign reserves held in AUD/SGD-denominated assets.
Meanwhile, payment systems would be interoperable with Australian and Singaporean payment networks. A joint prudential council between Dilga’s monetary authority, APRA, ASIC and MAS would ensure financial stability.
What does this do for Singapore? It extends financial infrastructure influence outward. It reflects how Singapore’s central bank has guided the growth of digital banking and payments in ASEAN, much like its work with the Global Finance & Technology Network (GFTN).
Making it Work: Tax revenues, Dispute resolution & Geopolitics
Unlike typical SEZs that compete on tax concessions, Dilga is envisioned to be asset-driven. Gussen explains: “Dilga finances itself primarily through ownership and operations, not taxes. Mixed‑ownership rule: City holds 40% of each major enterprise; private investors hold 60%”.
Its primary revenue pillar is dividends from the city’s 40% equity stakes; secondary pillars include concession income (upfront and annual fees, revenue shares, and performance adjustments), surpluses from state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and ground rents from strategic monopolies.
As for taxes, Gussen notes: “Tax is limited to GST (5–8%) and user‑pays; no income, payroll, or corporate taxes”.
Meanwhile, city-level revenue would come from concession fees, dividends from enterprise shares, and ground rents. To prevent a regulatory “race to the bottom,” treaty-level guardrails and fiscal review committees that review matters every five years are built in.
This mirrors Singapore’s state capitalist strategy of using enterprise ownership (e.g., Keppel, PSA, JTC) to extract value instead of tax regimes. But Gussen also warns against pursuing such a project as a one-off and argues for a multi-city approach to unlock the geopolitical element.
He argues for recruiting partners such as South Korea, the Arab Gulf states and European consortia from the Benelux or Nordic nations. This provides political cover and economic scale. Additionally, it reduces the risk of forming enclave narratives or triggering regional sensitivities.
Gussen argues: “This is how true inflexion points in global governance occur: not through incremental pilots, but through coalitions of the willing acting simultaneously, generating momentum, legitimacy, and scale. A multi-origin network of charter cities across Australia would demonstrate…an emerging world order—a system in which cities, not states, become the primary units of innovation, specialisation, and international cooperation”.
“In short, Dilga must be born alongside siblings, not alone. A federation of charter cities, backed by a coalition of international partners, is far more resilient—and far more transformative—than any sequential, single-site approach.”
Ethical expansion, Exit strategies
Any Australian project requires Indigenous participation to be constitutionally embedded. No project proceeds without Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), a binding compact with traditional owners, and structural participation in equity, revenue and governance.
This can help establish a new standard for Singapore-led overseas projects, which are often criticised as top-down.
As for an exit strategy? When factoring in the possibility of failure or political discontinuity, as Prospera has encountered, Dilga’s wind-down model resembles corporate resolution. Its triggers? Governance breaches, sustained KPI failure, or financial distress. And its response ladder? Enhanced supervision. special administration, lender step-in, going-concern sale or orderly wind-down/hand-back.
Meanwhile, residents would be protected through transition visas, pre-funded deposit insurance and pension guarantees. This also safeguards Singapore’s international brand as a responsible urban developer.
Turning Points: Why this matters
The fact is, Singapore’s evolution transcends traditional economic models. It’s hit a critical inflexion point in a shifting world order. The FTAs and overseas industrial parks the city-state relied on are inadequate for the future.
Treaty-based urban development means a shift from regional talent deployment to city-based performance visas. Moving from portfolio investments to direct urban infrastructure equity, it’s also a shift from developing tax-optimised manufacturing zones to designing and building integrated supply-chain ecosystems.
Traditional industrial exports are showing diminishing returns amid intensified competition across the Asia Pacific. Singapore must pivot towards exporting urban systems. It’s not just industrial templates. It has to be comprehensive models that incorporate economic design, governance, and sustainability.
The key challenges ahead? It’s all about managing and mitigating strategic risks. Geopolitically? Projects need to be framed as multilateral development platforms. In the human capital dimension? Singapore needs to build and sustain a specialised cadre of urban governance managers (i.e. adaptive systems engineers). And politically? Projects must be perceived as collaborative, not extractive, in nature.
Charter cities represent a transformative paradigm. Singapore can export its operational logic and systems without territorial expansion. Drawing parallels with historical models like Aramco’s Dhahran, these urban ecosystems can:
- Create an integrated infrastructure
- Develop rules-based governance
- Maintain host nation sovereignty
- Enable economic innovation
Positioning itself as an urban governance architect, Singapore can transcend conventional economic development. It not only transforms its governance and systems into a global export, but also opens a channel for knowledge, labour and capital to be invested abroad. And if executed correctly? It can redefine Singapore’s global role. Instead of a commercial hub? It can be the innovative urban systems designer of the world.
