This article is garbage, and in reality only tarnishes Wired Magazine's commentary on culture. It reeks of American-centrism, shows a dire lack of research on the topic, and simply shows how ill-informed the writer is on many linguistic topics.

Some of the deficiencies in this article are specific and serious, namely that it presumes that:

1. "Chinglish", in the form of strangely worded English signs, is a natural written representation of the way Chinese people speak English, i.e. that really is how English is spoken by people in China. This may be true in a few cases, but the much more facile explanation is simply a paucity in the use of English in everyday life and a consequential overreliance on machine translation software. This precise topic has been explored at some length on the Language Log (for example, this post, where the innuendos of the word "干" have been explored in some detail). Just ask any computational linguist how hard it is to do translations today by computer!

2. That English is a single language that once had a uniform and standard usage, which is fragmenting into dialects due to multicultural factors. However, English has never been a unified language in the way that others like Spanish or French have been regulated over the centuries. The absence of an institution like the Real Academia Española or L'Académie française in the English-speaking world means an unparalleled diversity of vocabulary and ease of expansion that cannot be matched by languages where a gold standard exists by decree of an organization charged with maintaining linguistic purity. This also explains the relatively unusual approach taken by the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to be inclusive about all possible documentable variations on word usage, rather than err on the side of judging word usage to be incorrect.

There have been attempts at regulation, most recently encapsulated in the fascinating history of RP, or what we know today as "standard" British English. Surprisingly few people have ever spoken this particular dialect of English!

3. The article focuses exclusively on English spoken by ethnically Chinese peoples, and doesn't even explore the nuances of other influences.

4. There's some allusion to the "one character, one word" myth of the Chinese language, a proposition that has already been discredited in linguistic circles, e.g. here.

5. There is a confused conflation of "accent" and "dialect".

P. S. I have not heard any Singaporean pronounce "theories" is "tee-oh-rees"; I have usually heard "teer-rees".

Perfect English can can...
But the problem is, what if no one understands perfect English...?
I mean, why do we need to understand perfect English whereby people no understand...?

Depends on when you use it. like the old chinese saying goes: see human say human words see ghost say ghost words. or something along that line. kwa lan gong lan way, kwa gui gong gui way.

"Hwæt! Wē Gār-Dena in geārdagum, þēodcyninga, þrym gefrūnon, hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon." -- Beowolf, (Old English)

"Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote / The droghte of March hath perced to the roote." -- Chaucer (Middle English)

"O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?" -- Shakespeare (Early Modern English)

"It happen'd one Day about Noon going towards my Boat, I was exceedingly surpriz'd with the Print of a Man's naked Foot on the Shore." -- Defoe (Modern English)

Only dead languages don't change.

http://www.danshort.com/ie/grafx/timeline.gif