In fact, he is not entirely wrong. The logic is internally consistent: once you accept both the existence of a supposedly universal value system
and his authority to define its contents, the rest of the argument falls into place. The values themselves are straightforward: first, that everyone aspires to move from an HDB flat to private property; and second, that everyone wants to own a car. If those premises are accepted, then his conclusions follow naturally.
Within such a framework, there are no exceptions. In other words, the universal value system presumes that all human beings share the same hierarchy of values, regardless of their faith or the depth of their religious commitments. The supposed universality of these aspirations leaves no room for alternative understandings of what gives life meaning and purpose, not even for those whose deepest commitments are shaped by the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, both of whom challenged the notion that material advancement constitutes the highest human aspiration.
The elegance of the system lies in its self-reinforcing character. Whenever it encounters an apparent exception, someone who genuinely does not share these aspirations, it can simply dismiss the dissenter as an instance of "sour grapes." In doing so, dissent is reinterpreted as rationalization, and any challenge to the underlying assumptions is short-circuited. The system thereby preserves, intact and unexamined, the appearance of universality.
@Nut 徒兒, 可以嗎?

