It appears that there are may be some serious misconceptions about our local universities' academic credibility.
From what I know, NUS and NTU students have an option known as S/U, where the student can declare a module to be taken on an ungraded basis, i.e. the module's grade does not count into their GPA or CAP. NUS may be using a retrospective system, meaning you declare S/U after the grade is released, and NTU may be using a prospective system where you declare in advance.
There is of course a limit to the number of modules you can choose to declare using the S/U option. But whatever it is, it means NUS and NTU students can effectively neglect the poor grades they score in those modules.
Whereas in SMU, there is not such thing as S/U. If you happen to score very badly for a module, your only way out is to work harder for your other modules. In this case, an A+ seems to be the logical reprieve. but is it? As far as I know, an A+ is given to a handful of very outstanding students in the cohort, and some profs can choose not to give A+ if they do not think any student is deserving of it.
So to claim that "SMU's A+ screws the system up" may be a grossly unfair statement.
It is as good as comparing apples to oranges, when you compare the 2 types of classification systems. The fact is, no matter which education system you come from. If you are a first class or a summa cum laude, you must have really deserved it, for you can never get lucky throughout your university life. Everyone who has gone through university knows that.