> Whatever their form of government, small city states are always going to be able to avoid many of the pitfalls of larger countries. There's effectively only one level of government to deal with, and the despot is always going to live down the road from you and need to use the same public services as you, so you don't get the sort of disconnect e.g. Rome or the British Empire had from its provinces or overseas holdings.

Recently, I also heard the opinion that another country that can be compared to Sing is Kazakhstan... wait?

The comparison is not so ridiculous if you go through with it:

... it is not a city state, but you can say that it is a "two city state." Besides Astana, and Almaty, the nation is effectively a post-soviet wasteland.

... LKY, just as Kazakh president was a socialist and nationalist early on, and of a very radical kind.

... LKY, just as Kazakh president purged every socialist and nationalist the moment he got a nation for himself.

... aside from elites living in ghettos for the rich, the ordinary population is pressed against the wall by low median income.

... to a very big extend, the state gives just enough of handouts to the masses to prevent them from rioting. This way, both Kazakhstan and Singapore can be called a de-facto, but not de-jure socialist states.

... both countries' economies are one trick ponies, despite of decades of dramatic efforts to change that.

... both countries spend lavishly on clearing up their image abroad, but the general populace of both countries can't disagree more with their respective countries popular image.

The biggest noticeable difference is of course that Singapore is cosy with the West, and Kazakhstan isn't.