So here's a non-hypothetical question that I don't know the answer to: if Charles Murray was a Singaporean who tried to publish a popular book (as opposed to a purely academic paper, which was to be non-publicized and behind a paywall, etc...) that states that Malays and Indians have a lower average IQ than Chinese (and that this determined primary by hereditary genetics and unlikely to change in the long term), would he face more or less obstacles in Singapore than he did in US? My intuition says that he would be prohibited to publish in Singapore and possibly face fines and/or jail time (especially without political connections). I think this has an actual answer (have there been similar cases before? I would be surprised if there weren't), however, but alas I am too lazy to look.

In regards to paternalism (laws regulating personal safety, nutrition, private health, family relations, etc...) I also believe Singapore tends to fare worse, even if it's manifested in different ways (e.g., there may not be laws against trans fat, but there is compulsory military service, near impossibility of being allowed to live alone in an apartment, extreme difficulty of private car ownership -- which moots the discussion of car seats, etc...). As I a firearm owner, I find California (where I live) and New York gun laws to be idiotic -- but I'm pretty sure my "collection" (couple of rifles and a pistol) would mean death penalty in Singapore.

I think one place where you may have a point is the case of entitlements: it is indeed rare for democracies to have significantly cut some aspects welfare state, namely middle-class entitlement like medicare and social security (welfare programs for the truly poor do get cut frequently, but they are actually less fiscally burdensome than the middle class entitlement).

However, there have been cases of other regulations being significantly loosened, e.g., airline deregulation is something I am quite grateful for.