I was thinking about Africa, while most colonies was disasters in the first post colonial periode, most of them in Asia has stabilised as funktionel developing states today, while most of the African ones hasn't, the extra years give the locales a chance to get extra infrastructure and getting more locales in the adminstration, which mean that they keep a more stable adminstrative apparature after the decolonisation.
The objection I have is, "Wait, what extra infrastructure?"
The British colonies, after all, were run on the cheap and often developed to keep "regressive" elements in positions of power, like chieftains and the like. Education was underdeveloped in the African colonies, which were run by a triflingly small number of administrators; something like 9,000 people ran Britain's non-settler colonies in Africa, for instance.
This is why I think comparison to the Asian Tigers is off. And let's remember that of the Asian Tigers, the only ones run by European powers were entrepot city-states. Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are conspicuous by their absence from the list.
Regarding Manchukuo: It was in theory a settler colony; in practice, with hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrating in each year versus a few thousand Japanese... well.