There is much to learn from Singapore, but its internal diversity isn't quite comparable to that elsewhere. As an outsider non-expert (and I'm sure you can fill

There is much to learn from Singapore, but its internal diversity isn't quite comparable to that elsewhere. As an outsider non-expert (and I'm sure you can fill in more details), much of its policy seems designed (and effective) to suppress ethnicity-as-a-source-of-political-strife. Some examples: • It's been essentially a one-party state its entire existence • English is the official language but almost no-one's traditional/family language, making English a non-negotiable and somewhat neutral focal point for cooperation, rather than a issue of contention/dominance • Immigrants have been filtered, within living memory, based on their willingness to embrace the Singapore bargain: political stability/homogeneity for wealth and safety. (And comparisons of much-worse-off cousins in neighboring countries are easily available, unlike other countries where the Nth-generation poor maintly see better-off countrymen.) • 85% (!) of all residents live in high-quality public housing, but the proportion of residents per development is carefully managed with quotas to prevent the formation of ethnic-activism political blocks • Death to drug traffickers! And until recently, lashings for spitting-on-the-sidewalk. Plus the various kinds of libel suits which keep criticism of the government/party/housing-board/governing-investment-funds on a short leash. It looks to me that Singapore has tamed some of the governance problems that come with radical ethnic diversity by using heavy-handed techniques that couldn't be used in other diverse competitive democracies.