Are some Old World places, say South Africa or Singapore considered "settler" nations, that seem as new as New World? (land)

[markovian process]

Just wondering about examples in the Old World where colonists (or colonists and later immigrants) settled among the natives, or in spite of them. Are some examples of Old World societies, considered reasonably, examples of "settler" nations just as much as New World ones where the colonizers built their country on native land and where the nation-building was formed as a result of colonialism?

[The Postman]

There wasn't much European settlement anywhere in Asia, South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) are the best examples in South Africa, but it's not like they totally extirpated the locals like in North America or Australia.

Singapore is an interesting case. It was a sleepy fishing village like Hong Kong before Raffles came in 1819 to claim it for Britain, and thus functioned as part of the Straits Settlements sort of like a far away enclave of British India. Never a major centre prior to that, it was inhabited by local Malays, Chinese, and a few others. After 1819 many Indians, Chinese, Javanese, Arabs.etc came to work there. They eventually settled there and created modern Singapore. There was always a white upper class, mostly British, but they were always rather separate from the population as a whole. But yes, I would say that Singapore and Malaya/Malaysia was largely built due to colonialism, as was Hong Kong, which was a small fishing village before the British came. In that sense it's unlike older Chinese cities. Indeed even Shanghai owes a lot of it's growth to trade/colonialism.