Your question reveals some crucial distinctions that the original post glosses over. Singapore, Hong Kong, and Bermuda represent a very specific type of colonial experience that's fundamentally different from most of Africa.

These were entrepôt colonies - trading hubs designed to facilitate commerce rather than extract raw materials. Colonial powers invested heavily in their infrastructure, legal systems, and human capital because these places needed to function as efficient commercial centers. They developed sophisticated financial institutions, rule of law frameworks, and educational systems that served the metropole's trading interests.

Contrast this with extractive colonies in much of Africa, where the institutional setup was designed to extract resources as cheaply as possible. Colonial powers had little incentive to build broad-based human capital, diversified economies, or inclusive institutions. The infrastructure was extractive - railways from mines to ports, not integrated transport networks. Education was minimal and designed to produce clerks and laborers, not skilled professionals.

Geographic factors also matter enormously. Singapore and Hong Kong are strategically located ports in major shipping lanes. Bermuda benefits from proximity to major financial centers. Most African countries are landlocked or have challenging geography that makes trade more expensive.

Scale and demographics are crucial too. City-states can pivot quickly and don't need to integrate diverse rural populations with different languages and economic systems - something African countries face due to arbitrary colonial borders that lumped together different ethnic and economic groups.

Perhaps most importantly, these places inherited different institutional legacies. Singapore and Hong Kong developed as commercial law centers with property rights regimes designed to facilitate business. Many African countries inherited administrative systems designed for control and extraction, not development.

The success of these former colonies actually supports the institutional argument about colonialism's lasting effects - they show that where colonialism created developmental rather than extractive institutions, post-colonial success was more likely. The question isn't whether colonialism always dooms countries, but what kind of colonial legacy was left behind.