Edit: Spoiler: the inhabitable area is about the size of Puerto Rico, a country it has 8x the population of, and something someone who had been there would know...
Sure, Taiwan is funny that way. But I'm trying to figure out what it is that Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan have in common that causes you to label all 3 of them "microstates", but that causes you to exclude, say, Belgium or Denmark. I'll await your reply as I watch the sun set over Taipei.
Edit: HN won't let me reply to your reply below, which I'll take as a hint that I should stop arguing. As your first post was limited to Asian microstates, I agree that I shouldn't have thrown European countries into the mix. I still question the "micro-ness" of Taiwan, which is more populous than Hong Kong or Singapore by a factor of 3 or 4 (and not quite as wealthy), but sure, whatever.
> what it is that Singapore,
> Hong Kong, and Taiwan have
> in common ... exclude, say,
> Belgium or Denmark
To clarify, you're seriously asking why I left Belgium and Denmark out of a list of small and rich Asian countries?
Update: but ya know, even if it wasn't about continent(!) the main difference is that Belgium and Denmark sit in the middle of large areas with border-free travel, largely homogenous policing, largely homogenous drug laws and share the same Supreme Court with their neighbours. Seeing them as micro-states, rather than constituent states of the EU for this purpose surely misses the point.
