Digital divide

There is division everywhere.

A very stark contrast in Beijing, Singapore is not spared either.

If we just talk about siheyuans, simply looking at its facade is a good indicator of the family or families' financial situation.

In the past, hierarchies are differentiated based on the depth from the external walls to the door, the number of "门当", the type of stone slabs sitting outside and the colour of the walls. Today, all, except the colour of the walls, are no longer a good indicator of a family's wealth. Red still remains to be the colour used only by super high ranking officials. The commoners have to contend with grey. Foreigners who flood China paying millions of dollars for an old siheyuan, thinking they can paint the walls a nice bright red are in for a surprise. Sorry man, this is something money cannot buy. And for once, they have to realise that having money is not everything.

Now let's talk about something that money can buy. Today's papers had an article on "It's harder for children without computers", by Chua Hian Hou. My heart goes out to the boy Peng Da, who answers with such innocence of a sensible child contented with the inadequacies of his life. It is not easy, being in the same environment as kids who have the luxury of heading home after school, MSN, email and play Maplestory for hours and hours, without feeling inferior.

There's always this notion that if one is not exposed to the better things in life, he would not be tempted by greed and expectations of a better life, such that he will remain contented with what he's got.

It's like if I don't know that some other people are earning S$20 and hour waitressing halfway across the globe, I won't lament at my miserable S$4.50 per hour pay. Ignorance is bliss, but is it really?

I think the remarkable thing is when you know and yet you are contented with what you've got. Like little Peng Da. He is not ignorant to neopets and msn, but yet he sounds satisfied with using the school's computer and paying to use the one at the public library. With lesser distractions, I'm sure he scores in school through diligence.

Some people I met in Beijing mentioned how our income divide isn't as great as that in China. I don't know what to say. Take our country's population, multiple exponentially to match China's population, I can't be sure the divide isn't comparable. There are still people who are struggling to make ends meet in our country, scrimping and saving. Adolescents taking on 2 part-time jobs to support the family, not indulge in frivolous expenses. It is just perhaps we're not aware, because after all 家丑不能外阳. It's a pride thing too.

So I was thinking, if we can pair up one well-to-do family with one less-well-to-do family, would it probably make things better? Think about it, Family A has a 20 inch-television in working condition which they want to upgrade to a Plasma TV. What do they do with the existing one? They can

1. trade in (I'm not sure if they can really, presuming they can and that they would do it)
2. sell it to the karang guni man (who will pay u peanuts for it and then probably re-sell it)
3. sell it themselves at a garage sale (which is too much of a hassle to organise for one tv)
4. donate it to some community club who will resell these appliances at cheaper prices to the less well-to-do families
5. donate directly to Family B

I think we may already have an organisation that collects old, working electrical appliances, but it is difficult for them to give them away free to families who need them because how do you justify which family needs it more than the other? So the only way is to resell it at lower prices, which would discriminate against those who can't pay for it. But if Family A hands the television over directly to Family B, then even though Family B can't afford a television or would rather not spend that unnecessary money they could still enjoy something which is no longer of use to Family A.

An extra hairdryer, a crockery gift set are all things that Family A might have that would benefit Family B more. It's like a mentoring scheme. So we can all learn to be more accepting and giving in our society. It is non-obligatory, that is, Family A doesn't need to give a certain number of items to Family B in a year, it is more like as and when they find something in the house that they no longer need and is still working and would be of use to Family B, they could donate it out.

I don't ever think there will be a day where everyone is equal and no poverty exist in our country, but at least instead of wasting resources, we can let extravegance be put to good use.

However, there may be one potential problem that could arise.

In a pairing scheme like that, some Families A may have more to give to their paired up Family B. So other Family Bs might feel disgruntled and wish they were paired with a better Family A.

But I think the mentality must be right for a scheme like this to be implemented. Since Family B is on the receiving end of benevolence, such calculations should really be exterminated. Be humble and grateful. For Family A, it is about voluntary giving, spreading wealth, not about superiority or indebtness. There should be no condescension. And Family B is not a junk yard.

That is why we may need someone in between to see the appropriateness of the items. Family A wants to give, Family B must want to take. And if we need someone to do the transaction's paperwork, voluntary retired senior citizens or the unemployed who can write and communicate with both sides, can be roped in to help.

Let us put our resources, both material and human to good use. Make it a win-win for all.