Singapore is a rare contemporary example of a city-state, & I think that makes the scenario very different from most cases. Using this as an example seems ill suited.
Let's compare to one of your other cited cases, Philippines. Both experienced to degrees the wave of modernization following WW2, a moment of great possibility. Singapore is a very small nation, 1/4 the size of the smallest US State, Rhode Island. Sinagpore is positioned nicely amid a number of other countries giving it close trade access, and at the sea-most tip of a major intercontinental route. The Philippines is almost 100x bigger, about on par with Nevada, the 7th largest state, with much more space & population to tend to. Philippines is non-continugous in extreme, a nation of many islands, further exarcerbating the difficulty of effective governance. Philippines are isolated by a couple hundred miles of sea from other nations, and located rather at the edge of the map.
Singapore is one of the few city-states left on this planet, and it was one permitted to strain & grow at a crucial inflection point in human history.
Too authoritarian and too ideological China lifted more people out of poverty faster than had previously happened on the planet. The problem was that Mao was insulated from information and his intentions were filtered through a corrupt collection of creeps who surrounded him, his wife being one of the worst. It eventually made him completely out of touch, and even his intentions became bizarre. The opening of the economy saved a country on fire, and wouldn't have been needed if they had established a proper system with proper succession and safeguards against corruption.
Removing stigma against wealth seriously damaged China culturally; instead of unity in beliefs and values, they drifted into boring nationalism. They used to fight for each other, now they fight for China.
One aspect about this topic that I’ve never seen discussed anywhere, is the bidirectional relationship between countries, such as how authoritarian and corrupt countries export their authoritarianism and corruption to other countries in the same way that the US exports their weapons, capitalism, entertainment, and soft power, but very rarely, if ever, their "freedom", as if that’s the one thing, in spite of the excessive rhetoric, that isn’t fungible.
For an example of what I’m talking about, much of the political chaos and tendency towards authoritarianism in the US that we’ve seen in the post-9/11 era, has been imported from autocratic and authoritarian regimes. From what I’ve read, the first reports of massive online political trolling operations outside of Russia and China were first observed and reported on from the Philippines at the beginning of the Obama admin in the US.
Interviews with regional human rights groups at the time noted that the trolling operations in the Philippines were being used in the same way as repressive regimes in the Middle East had previously used them—to deliberately spread conspiracy theories so as to destabilize the information held by the electorate and to shift the power from independent media sources that provide checks and balances on power to authoritarian regimes which relied on the conspiracy theories to foment confusion and consolidate hegemony.
We saw the same thing occur in the US beginning in 2016, with the rise of Trumpism and its associated conspiracy theories known as QAnon. Was it just a coincidence that their origin point was also the Philippines?
Trolling though, that is also not new. The VoA and North Korean campaigns, to name but two, have promoted all kinds of destabilizing theories. The difference is the media used --Duterte used it to great success and so did ISIS.
There is little question that a few countries in Asia benefitted from authoritarianism, some were more kid glovish than others, and obviously some were more violent than others in suppressing dissent. However, they achieved economic success for their people --though not all. The Philippines are an example where corruption as well as high pop growth dragged down progress. China too, initially was too authoritarian and too ideological, till they opened up their economy, or at least removed much of the stigma against "wealth" and invited foreign investment.