"Singapore had been colonized, occupied, and abused for over a century, " This is a bit glib anti-history. There was almost nothing there when the English purc

"Singapore had been colonized, occupied, and abused for over a century, " This is a bit glib anti-history. There was almost nothing there when the English purchased/leased the territory and setup a trading post with strong rule of law and competent commercial practices, and developed a key port which allowed it to exist and flourish. There was no 'Singapore' until UK Colonialists and local migrants made it. Singapore, along with Hong Kong, have benefited greatly from rigorous and stable commercial foundations, which allow them to flourish in an region of otherwise political, legal and economic uncertainty. If you have money in Asia over the last 200 years, you preferably want it in Hong Kong or Singapore. The 'secret' to Singapore's success might be a bit tantamount to if someone were to cleave off Manhattan from the rest of the USA, it's GDP per capita would be 2x that of 'The Mainland', but would we wonder how it was successful? They'd own the financial and distributor/merchant economic sectors of the region while externalizing less profitable ventures to the mainland. As Asia as grown significantly, Western countries need 'bases' to work from and Singapore / HK were ideal choices, not HK is almost off the radar a process which has been ongoing for a couple of decades. "Singapore modernized without imposing "Western political models on Asian realities". Singapore is a Western entity in terms of core governance, judicial, commercial law etc.. Singaporean legal system still refers to English law, and even Commonwealth aka Canadian/Australian legal precedent to this day. Singapore is a Western commercial and colonialist construct with mostly Western institutions, an Easter population, and an Eastern political elite who have their flavour of governance.