I see no logical reason to reply to his assertions because his letter is beating about the wrong bush. This answer is merely to direct him to the right bush.

There was never any contention in my letter about the salaries of the middle- and lower-class civil servants.

Therefore, to be reminded about the teacher, receptionist and, if I may add, the refuse collector, or any other lowly paid civil servant, is not an issue because there was no issue taken with them.

I do not know why Mr Tan has seen fit to include them into the polemic where, by inclusion, they obfuscate the real issue.

My letter asserted very clearly that ex cathedra cannot expect its call for love of country and sacrifice for country to be believed and acted upon, when the top echelon (this does not include the teacher, receptionist or clerk) gives the impression of a nexus to private sector remuneration in discharging its duties.

The cold-warm research is a fact. The behavioural pattern that emerged is also a fact.

Mr Tan's letter barks up the wrong tree and labours to paint an entirely different dialectic to my polemic.

Dudley Au