I am elitist. I believe those in the elite circles (no inverted commas) are better than those outside, not because they are naturally smarter, but generally because those who are there made it there on something, and they do deserve some recognition, more so than the general populace. So don't complain that the elite schools get more money etc. They actually deserve it.
There are two kinds of upper class citizens that generally exist in any society. The upper or upper-middle class in this context is defined by financial standing, those able to afford a relatively comfortable life, that condo/house, a flashy BMW or Mercedes Benz. And if you should be so lucky to be the offspring to reap your parents' paycheck, maybe even a more than generous allowance and your own car by the age of 18. Given that Singapore is an overall prosperous country, it wouldn't be far from the truth to say that there is a significant demographic in the population regardless of a widening gap between rich and poor, who would fall in this category of the upper-middle and above class.
And then there are the "elitists". It's a redundant term in social and financial standing because unlike a normal class system, it is a status given by one's self, intellectual superiority is automatically assumed and defined by him/herself.
Derek's argument that people become reduandant once they reach 40 is supported by evidence of taxi drivers. And erm, because he met a couple of taxi drivers who got retrenched and couldn't find jobs, says that everyone becomes obsolete at 40.
... I dunno about you guys, but i can easily name 10 people (not even related to the government!) that still hold good steady jobs over the age of 40. So please don't take your taxi drivers as case study for the whole populace.
Anyone can easily see that neither Derek nor the "elitist" are equipped with representative survey reports to defend their assertions. But this is irrelevant to the fundamental understanding that lack of evidence is not proof of anything i.e. an assertion of knowing people above 40 holding secure jobs does not disprove that others don't. It is intellectual laziness. It further reinforces my constant belief that colleges and universities, upper-tier or not, do not automatically generate people capable of thinking skills critical to logical debate.
Ironically enough, i don't think elitism is something the upper class invented from themselves. Elitism in my opinion starts from the segregation of certain people, because of social stereotypes, and all that crap. I get really annoyed when people go "Wah you from RJ ah. Must be damn smart lor" etc. When in actual fact we're really no different from the rest of you people. Except maybe for the fact that we do use our brains for something more useful. It's the mentality however, that people have about us, which we eventually accept for ourselves. So don't blame us for being elitist.
Ironically, Derek seemed more proficient in using a spell-check in his article, Future of Singapore. Ironically, this "elitist" who believes he is naturally "smarter" than most, believes his self-imposed status is really a consequence of social stereotyping, a ghetto mentality for excusing one's behaviour. I have my reserves as to what the "elitist" really deems his brain useful for, if such a person is unable to intellectually grasp a subject before branding the opposition with poor grammar (another irrelevant point to any real discussion) and name-calling. Surely that would be more akin to the on-goings of a kindergarden playground afflicted by crap flinging.