A fairer comparison would be the failure of San Francisco and success of Singapore. I think comparing a city essentially that is Singapore to a giant landmass of 330M people that is USA - is sort of meaningless IMO.
San Francisco has some very obvious problems, but there's no way I'd rather be in Singapore as someone who has worked at social media startups, crypto, and dabbling in biotech/longevity... the early opportunities aren't there because the imagination and freedom to pursue it isn't there.
It's a systems problem because allowing serious dissent and dissatisfaction can inspire innovation.
This is out of scope.
The comparison is about city management. Not creativity.
When you talk about creativity, SF is at the forfront a giant nation of 300M people, 2 orders of magnitude larger population and market size. That naturally support more creativity and innovation.
As for how much the market contribute to your claimed advantage, it's hard to measure. It might be that indeed SF per capita creativity, excluding market impact, is better than SG. I have no reason to doubt that, but I see not proof.
Not mentioning other aspects when you are a central cit in a superpower.
If we're talking about the Bay Area tech startup founders then roughly half of those are born outside of the US. Singapore could have just as easily attracted those immigrants, but they went to SF instead.