I have no contention regarding communication. My contention is regarding this:
You can't make two points initially (communication and deviation) and then conveniently omit the point that I was contending about in your reply. The idea of a self-imposed standard as authoritative to the extent of making some variants "illicit" is a backward way of thinking.
I think it is you who is mistaken, where did I contend your supposed view? I pointed out an incident of what is happening in Singapore, please show where I am proposing it as my view on how I think it should be. Subsequently you chose to focus on it as your point of why languages should be allowed to 'deviate' (not sure what term you prefer, feel free to substitute)
An out-of-topic example: Say I posted a topic on religion and I happen to say there are a growing number of Christians while Taoism is being abandoned, does this automatically mean I am in favour? I think not.
My second post deliberately emphasized the only point I am making is that there is a good case for a standard so that we can communicate without problems. Please read our posts again in sequence and show me exactly where I am trying to counter your points. Hope to see your reply on this.
If I intend to dispute any point you are making, you can be sure I will certainly quote the paragraph in question.