> In fact, it was highly conditioned by Singapore’s own context, and how Lee and the People’s Action Party (PAP) responded to the political dynamics of the time

> In fact, it was highly conditioned by Singapore’s own context, and how Lee and the People’s Action Party (PAP) responded to the political dynamics of the time. The resulting model is effective in Singapore itself, yet inevitably limited by scale. Large social processes are more complex than any schemata can capture—and yet, authoritarian high modernist states must rely on schemata to make centralized decisions. What happened to writing without heaps of jargon thrown in? Instead of "Singapore's history and culture," we read, "Singapore's own context." And there's the double usage of "schemata" two sentences later. Before I outgrew my youthful Marx-Hegel phase, I might have thought writing such as this was insightful. Now I see it mostly as pseudo-profundity that communicates minuscule amounts of information, if any, wrapped in an obfuscating layer of jargon.