From primary school to middle school, my pals and I filled in a great many
biographical forms.
At the time, the country was still embroiled in the chaotic "cultural
revolution" (1966-76) and politics dominated everyday life.
Most items in the forms were quite common, like the date of birth, sex, the
schools we'd attended, our parents' names and their work.
But one item seemed a little conspicuous. We were required to reveal what
kind of family we came from, with those classifications including "worker,"
"clerk," "intellectual," "proprietor," "peasant" or "cadre." Whoever opted for
"cadre" would always place a label before it to make it "revolutionary cadre."
Even as teenagers, we were conscious of the differences. At some class
reunions over the years, a number of classmates bitterly recalled that teachers
always favoured those from "revolutionary cadre" families with such appointments
as class monitors and other positions of academic leadership.
In those days, we were told to distinguish people by their "classes" and
ideology "revolutionary" or "reactionary." However, reality also sank in.
For instance, "revolutionary cadre" families, usually having only one or two
children, lived in bigger apartments, while the homes of factory "workers" were
invariably smaller even though their families were bigger, sometimes with three
or more children.
Things have changed a great deal as a result of China's economic and social
development since the nation began to embark on its reform and opening to the
outside world.
My daughter has filled in very few biographical forms in the years from
primary to senior high school. The item for the family category no longer
exists.
Her teachers appoint students to leadership positions based on their own
merits. My daughter does talk about family differences, but those usually
concern child-parent relationships. Social status or the amount of wealth is not
mentioned.
But the whole of society is aware of societal gaps, between urban and rural
areas and between the rich and the poor.
While the media should urge society to aid the poor and the needy,
governments at all levels should work even harder to reduce and bridge those
gaps.
We do hear about a lot of government projects established to improve the
lives of the rural people.
For instance, quite a few mountainous villages in rural suburbs of Beijing
have been turned into eco-tourism sites, as new houses are built to serve as bed
and breakfast hostels. Farmers have become master chefs and tourist guides,
while also trying to keep the mountains green and streams clean.
Meanwhile, many villages have opened their orchards and strawberry fields to
the public, charging more per kilo for those who want to experience the joy of
picking fruit.
Other projects, such as the opening of schools or free school enrolment for
migrant children, are also under way.
Those projects deserve applause, but we must also be aware that some projects
to beautify urban centres do not seem to work towards bridging those gaps.
We have all witnessed the phenomenon of low-income residents being pushed out
beyond Beijing's third and fourth ring roads as their old low-rise homes make
way for expensive new apartments.
Developers may argue it is the work of the market economy, but some officials
have shown their lack of awareness of their responsibility towards bridging the
gap between the rich and the poor.
A friend of mine personally heard one district urban planner talking about
drawing "gaoduan" (literally meaning high-end) people high-income people into
their newly-developed residential zones, even though the same zone was home to
many low-income families.
It is time we gave officials such as this urban planner the wake-up call that
everyone is born equal, if we hope to build a harmonious society.
Email: lixing@chinadaily.com.cn
(China Daily 05/25/2006 page4)
