> Also the only way multiculturalism can work is through a totalitarian state which is why surveillance and censorship is so big in the UK. Also the reason why

> Also the only way multiculturalism can work is through a totalitarian state which is why surveillance and censorship is so big in the UK. Also the reason why Singapore works. Singapore, if anything, is evidence against your claim about the UK. Singapore has multiple cultures, but it does not promote multi-culturalism as it is generally understood in the UK. Their language policy is: 1. Everyone has to speak reasonably good English. 2. Languages other English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil are discouraged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_planning_and_policy_in_Singapore#The_Indian_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_planning_and_policy_i... The language policy is more like the treatment of Welsh in the 19th century, or Sri Lanka's attempt to impose a single national language from the 60s to the 80s (but more flexible as it retains more than one language). A more extreme (because it goes far beyond language) and authoritarian example would be contemporary China's suppression of minority cultures. I do not think anyone would call any of those multiculturalism. The reason for surveillance and censorship in the UK is very different. It is a general feeling in the ruling class that the hoi polloi cannot be trusted and centralised decision making is preferable to local or individual decision making. The current Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a great example - the central point is that the authorities will make more decisions for people and organisations and decide what they an do to a greater extent than at the moment.