MM and Lucky Tan disagree on many things (see this piece by Lucky) But as the piece shows they agree that if the PAP cannot deliver material prosperity, it will get kicked out fast. They of course disagree on whether the PAP is delivering prosperity, and what is prosperity
But they both could be wrong on the PAP quickly losing power if the PAP cannot deliver prosperity. Think Japan and the LDP. After holding power continuously from its inception in 1955 (with the exception of a ten-month period in 1993–1994), Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lost control of the national government only in September 2009. This despite failing to fix the economy for 16 years. An economy that had crashed after a huge bubble had burst in the early 1990s.
One reason, among several. The people knew the LDP was incompetent but they tot the Opposition was worse. So they kept voting LDP, in the hope that the LDP would get its act together, until they decided that the Opposition could not do any worse. Note the party in power, the JDP, since 2009 has been lurching from crisis to crisis.
Thoughts of a Cynical Investor 
Of course, we can’t expect the JDP to get the necessary experience to govern effectively within just one term.
Hence the importance of allowing multiple parties their day in the sun over a prolonged period; this builds a strong shadow cabinet with real experience in implementing policy.
Too bad for the Japs, they brought it upon themselves by giving the LDP a 50-year mandate. In the end the nation ultimately suffers from the dearth of talent when it needs it most.
I think it’s more than prosperity. It’s identity, it’s recognition and it’s birth right. Can we become like USA? A gigantic melting pot so to speak? We jolly well know these infiltrations are here for the $ and will return to their “motherlands” when it’s time.