I ENCOUNTERED something on this trip to India that I had never met before: a whole new political community — India’s “virtual middle class.” Its emergence explains a lot about the rise of social protests here, as well as in places like China and Egypt. It is one of the most exciting things happening on the planet. Historically, we have associated democratic revolutions with rising middle classes achieving certain levels of per capita annual income — say, $10,000 — so people can worry less about basic food and housing and more about being treated as citizens with rights and with a voice in their own futures. But here’s what’s fascinating: The massive diffusion of powerful, cheap computing power via cellphones and tablets over the last decade has dramatically lowered the costs of connectivity and education — so much so that many more people in India, China and Egypt, even though they’re still just earning a few dollars a day, now have access to the kind of technologies and learning previously associated solely with the middle class.
That’s why India today has a 300-million-person middle class and another 300-million-person virtual middle class, who, though still very poor, are increasingly demanding the rights, roads, electricity, uncorrupted police and good governance normally associated with rising middle classes. This is putting more pressure than ever on India’s elected politicians to get their governance act together.
“Thanks to technology and the spread of education, more and more people are being empowered at lower and lower levels of income than ever before, so they think and act as if they were in the middle class, demanding human security and dignity and citizens’ rights,” explained Khalid Malik, the director of the U.N.’s Human Development Report Office and author of the book “Why Has China Grown So Fast for So Long?” “This is a tectonic shift. The Industrial Revolution was a 10-million-person story. This is a couple-of-billion-person story.”
And it’s not just driven by the 900 million cellphones in use in India today or the 400 million bloggers in China. The United States Agency for International Development office here in New Delhi connected me with a group of Indian social entrepreneurs the U.S. is supporting, and the power of the tools they are putting in the hands of India’s virtual middle class at low prices is jaw-dropping. Gram Power is creating smart microgrids and smart meters to provide reliable, scalable power for Indian rural areas, where 600 million Indians do not have regular (or any) electricity with which to work, read and learn. For 20 cents a day, Gram Power offers villagers a prepaid electricity card that can power all their home appliances. Healthpoint Services is providing safe drinking water for a family of six for 5 cents a day and telemedicine consultations for 20 cents a visit. VisionSpring is now distributing examinations and eyeglasses to India’s poor for $2 to $3 each. The Institute for Reproductive Health is alerting women of their fertile days each month with text messages, indicating when unprotected sex should be avoided to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And Digital Green is providing low-cost communications systems for Indian farmers and women’s groups to show each their best practices through digital films projected on a dirt floor.
These technologies still need scale, but they are on their way. And they are enabling millions more Indians to at least feel as if they are middle class and the political empowerment that goes with that, says Nayan Chanda, who runs the YaleGlobal Online Magazine and is co-editor of “A World Connected: Globalization in the 21st Century.”
In December, a 23-year-old Indian woman — whose father worked double shifts as an airport baggage handler, making about $200 a month so his daughter could go to school to become a physiotherapist — was gang-raped on a bus after she and a male friend had gone to a movie. She later died from injuries sustained in the rape.
She was a high-aspiring member of this new virtual Indian middle class, and her brutal rape and subsequent death triggered nationwide protests for better governance. “It is one of those turning points in history when a citizenry, so far pleased with economic gain, wants more than material comfort,” said Chanda. “They want recognition of their rights; they want quality of life and, most importantly, the good governance they have come to expect by watching the world.”
Ditto China. In December, noted Chanda, “when a Chinese censor in Guangzhou committed the unprecedented intrusion by physically entering the premises of Southern Weekend paper and rewriting their New Year editorial — turning a critical one into a panegyric of the Communist Party — Chinese journalists exploded. For the first time in history, they publicly demanded the resignation of the censor and China’s Twitter, Weibo, lit up with anger.”
And, of course, the Arab Awakening was triggered, not by middle-class college students, but by an aspiring-to-be-in-the-middle-class Tunisian vegetable seller who was abused by corrupt police. Leaders beware: Your people don’t need to be in the middle class anymore, in economic terms, to have the education, tools and mind-set of the middle class — to feel entitled to a two-way conversation and to be treated like citizens with real rights and decent governance.
1) Who are the parties involved and what are their roles in the issue? What is happening and why?
In this article, the parties involved are the virtual middle class, the companies, such as Gram Power, who are responsible for providing the virtual middle class with material comfort, and the Indian government.
The virtual middle class consists of people who, although not very well off economically, do have their basic needs satisfied. With the help of companies such as Gram Power, this class has been given cheap access to education and the rest of the world, through the internet. With their basic necessities taken care of, people in this class have turned their attention to ensuring they have a decent quality of life. With access to telecommunications technology, not only are these people more able to voice their opinions, they are also more aware of the world. This new access to such information and communications technology has made people more vocal and active in fighting for their rights. The recent New Delhi gang rape is an example of this. Apart from protests that occurred throughout the country, there were also numerous online protests. Many changed their profile pictures to a black oval, while others signed online petitions to push the government to act quickly. This has placed extra pressure on the media to report more rape cases in India, which in turn further fuels the movement for women’s rights in India.
2) How has this issue impacted the various stakeholders?
The rise of the virtual middle class and their increased involvement in politics and social issues has placed huge pressure on India’s government. Now, the government has to listen to the demands of an additional 300 million people who, up till now, were unable to make their voices heard. While this may improve the government, pushing them to invent in and improve areas in which India is lacking, I believe there is a risk that those in the lower class will be negatively affected. With the huge virtual middle class commanding the attention of the government, there is a chance that the government may neglect the very poor. If the very poor are neglected, this could in turn cause more social problems, such as increased crimes as these people begin to rely on illegal means to survive. If this happens in India, it could potentially set the stage for an uprising like the Arab Spring.
The general public in India has also been affected in a few ways. The increased pressure on the government has led to faster and more radical government action in some issues, while increased awareness of social issues has encouraged the people of India to take action on their own. Actions following the New Delhi gang rape are good examples of this. After the incident was publicised, the government made some changes, such as implementing stricter laws and punishments for such crimes. Many other people protested, both in the streets and online, trying to correct the current attitude of hatred and disrespect towards women.
2AA1, 2SA4 & 2SB5 Online Resource Blog 
Discussion Questions:
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
Technology gives power to those who are able to access it. Technology opens the fountain of knowledge with the various resources readily available online for people to enrich themselves and find out more about the world around them through international news agencies who post their articles online for an international audience to read and appreciate. As mentioned in the article, ‘they are enabling millions more Indians to at least feel as if they are middle class and the political empowerment that goes with that’ which shows that technology has indeed led to a more egalitarian society because it has given the poor more reason to feel more empowered and less helpless in their current social state.
Technology also means more access to medical equipment and treatments where the income gap between the rich and poor may not cease to be seen in this situation. As much as the advancement of technology helps people with illnesses to seek the right treatments the need to recover, the poor are unable to afford the high costs of high technology medical treatments and are still ultimately left to battle illness without medical help.
Technology allows an international audience to help the country in question achieve the goal of being a more egalitarian society. As issues of unfair treatment within countries who fail to lead its people to a more egalitarian society are reported online or through international print mediums such as magazines and newspaper, international governments or people may attempt to lend a helping hand to these countries through financial means or political discussions to improve the political situation or infrastructure that is causing the income gap.
Liu Weiting 2SB5
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
Like what the article mentioned, it is assumed that by projecting our dissatisfaction and anger towards the government, we can potentially bring about changes that can ensure that people will enjoy a better quality of life as the government will make adjustments to cope with the demands of its people. However, I beg to differ. The rise of the middle class only spells the fact that there is more awareness among the people, and that there will be more demands from the people who are now more “educated”.
The rise of the middle class does not necessarily mean that the government will make relevant changes so as to satisfy its people and ensure that its people will enjoy a higher quality of life. The government does not need to listen to its people all the time. They can choose to indirectly resolve its people’s need and yet unable to ensure any improvements to provide its people a better standard of living. Take the India’s gang rape case for example. It is true that the government did introduce some laws and regulations to deter such inhumane acts, but who can ensure that another of such rape incident will never occur again? They can be carried out in secret, and the incident can remain unresolved for years to come. Who knows?
People assumed that the government will listen to their demands because if the government do not do so, the citizens will potentially overthrow their seemingly useless leaders. As such, the leaders carry out actions for the sake of it instead of really looking into the people’s real need and make changes so as to provide a better quality of life for its people. Hence, it is usally impossible for real needs to be attended and thus the rise of the middle class might not necessarily bring about a higher standard of living.
Eventually, for a more brighter and better future, we need leaders who can understand the plight of its people, and not just those who are called leaders because they have more authority than us. The rise of the middle class might not spell good things either, as with the case of Arab Spring, whereby many suffered before their goals were met.
2. I agree that the rise of the middle class would spur an increase in the standards of living as there would be better communication between the government and the people. However, with more people demanding their rights and being more verbal with their opinions and concerns, it would be hard to discern which of these requests are realistic, and which are purely rants made by resentful citizens.
There are certain limitations every country would face. Most importantly, resources are scarce, and no matter how effective the government is or how hard the people work, the resources available are not enough for all to live luxuriously like kings. Thus, the extent to which the people’s quality of life can actually rise might be rather questionable. Also, I believe that true equality cannot exist, and while technology and better access to necessities such as education can serve to narrow the disparity gap by providing more equality in opportunities, it cannot eliminate it fully as there will always be a structure and hierarchy in society.
1. Technology has been one of the key triggers of the growing desire to have a more egalitarian society. The impact of technology, more specifically media technology such as the internet, can be felt for two reasons. Firstly, it provides exposure to new ideas, and secondly, it is a global platform for voices to be heard.
The internet has exposed countless people in societies all around the world to new ideas. People are made aware that in more liberal and ‘modern’ societies, there is a growing belief that everyone should be treated equally, and that no one should be discriminated based on race, gender, sexual orientation and other factors. Technology-savvy youths all over the world are thus influenced by this belief and become dissatisfied with their own society’s differing stance. They begin to strive to live in the same ‘modern’ and fair society, and can no longer accept any social inequality in their own society. Technology thus ignites the desire for a change.
The internet is a global microphone, and amplifies the individual voice at an unprecedented scale. Everyone, ranging from the average citizen to the heads of government, from the local community to the global community, can be reached via the internet. Demands for a more egalitarian society are then made on the internet. People who have been deprived solely based on the colour of their skin, or affiliations to a particular social groups, use this platform to share their experiences, the harshness with which they are treated and their desire to be equal as well. These inspire greater numbers to also desire an egalitarian society.
I agree with Deborah’s argument as technology has indeed provided the platform for the increase in exposure of our society to a wider variety of perspective. Through new media like the Internet, people are able to gather more information of other societies in different parts of the world and compare the laws and policies implemented by different governments. Upon seeing that the citizens of another country are granted equal rights and freedom, one might become dissatisfied with their society and want to be treated with equality as well.
Also, as more women enter the workforce and are proven to be able to do what men can do, they strive to be treated equally as their male counterparts and not be discriminated against just because of their gender. Thus, this results in an increasingly egalitarian society.
Koh Huey Chen 2SA4
Yes, the government will be galvanised to act upon the rise of a virtual middle class. This is because of the sue of technology and communication tools as well as improvement in government services sector to enable services such as complaints and public malfunctioning facilities to be corrected within a shorter time span. As long as the rudimentary level of necessity and public services are provided, the springboard towards development of an area should be secured to a large extent, assuming that the authorities are genuinely in the interest of improving social welfare and mitigating abject poverty in India. However, there is a certain limit to how much a government can act upon making positive changes to the country. Irrational expectations and an addition of hundreds of voices on the internet will result in heavy criticism towards the government for not reaching the expected unrealistic achievements of the government to improve welfare of its people, thus adding huge amount of burden on the government. Thus, it is important for a country to have long term planning that is with terms with its people and that its people are educated on the practicality and time frame needed to develop a country given its current level of resources. When a country wants to move forward, the government alone cannot push the entire country. Its people have to push patiently along with them.
I agree with this argument as more people in the middle class would be more able to afford more services like education and healthcare. This would inevitably lead to a higher standard of living. However, the rise of the middle class may lead to complacency in the population. People may take their positions for granted. Also, no longer being in a struggle, there would be less competition in the workforce which may cause a drop in productivity and possibly, economic growth. Furthermore, there will still be a prevalent income gap with the lower class still stipulated at the same spot, as stated in the article, as the government will pay less attention to the lower class.
Ng Min Min, 2SB5
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
Technology is a tool that provides people with a lot of knowledge and resources to solve a problem, raise awareness and educate them. Hence, this has led to a more egalitarian society to a large extent because people are more aware of their situations and can rally support for a cause to gain more reputation and hence, equality.
Digital technology has allowed people to cross reference with regards to different sources on the internet and eliminate any possibilities of censorship or propaganda in the traditional newspaper. This has allowed people to gain more knowledge, have a public opinion and a voice to raise their concerns. This will then pressurize the government to act faster and work harder to serve the needs of the people, in this case, India’s brutal rape If felt that the government is too slow in administration process, rallies could be formed through the social media platforms like facebook or twitter which could be very large scale and frightening. In the case of the Arab Revolution, mass media has provided a platform for communication and thus, a communal spirit to overthrow their corrupted governments for greater transparency and equality.
However, technology may not necessarily lead to a more egalitarian society because it can be costly, widening the economic gap between the rich and the poor. In terms of advanced medical facilities, only the wealthy would be able to pay for it and get cured while the poor will suffer. However, with medical subsidies provided or in a welfare states, medical costs will be relatively cheaper and hence bridge the income gap between the rich and the poor.
Josias 2SA4
2. A rising middle class will definitely galvanize the government to act as they are the ones who make up the bulk of the population and hold all the votes. However, it does not necessarily ensure an improved quality of life. Quality of life is difficult to quantify as it consists of both materialistic and non-materialistic aspects of one’s life. The materialistic aspect is much easier to measure. However, the non-materialistic aspect is near impossible to accurately gauge. Someone who is richer while being oppressed might not have a better quality of life than a satisfied sustenance farmer. It depends on how an individual perceives his or her own life and whether they are contented with it. Having said that, a rising middle class is definitely for the better.
Equality is a sketchy term that is used loosely. Most democratic governments aim to ensure equality amongst its people. In reality, true equality is impossible to attain. As long as there is someone better off than another, equality will cease to exist. Governments are helping lower income groups to close up the inequality gap by giving subsidies and providing financial aid. However, this is still not enough as the rich will definitely not sit around squandering their wealth away. Enough is never enough, the rich will get richer faster and the inequality gap will widen even more. This is inevitable unless those with more wealth have a sudden realization that all their pursuits for riches is futile and worthless, and as such they stop making money and instead donate their assets to society. Which of course, hasn’t happened and probably won’t anytime soon.
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
I agree with Josias as he argued that equality is a sketchy word that is unattainable in real life. Even in a Communist state, not everyone is treated with equality as they claim, as the officials and the leaders of the state being more wealthy would definitely be better off and able to lead a more materialistically comfortable life than its people, which are most probably equally poor. Hence i believe that if the rising middle class comes along with an increase in material standards of living, it would increase the welfare and living conditions of its people resulting in a better quality of life.
Although inequality has always been prevalent in most of the societies in one way or another, we have to acknowledge that a more equal state would be one that is more inclusive, which could translate to more peace and social stability. The rise of the middle class indeed signifies a closing of the income inequality gap, this however does not directly link to a brighter or more equal future. Obstacles in the way probably includes the already high and rising cost of living and competition for jobs due to low cost of foreign labour etc. These would no doubt still make it difficult for the middle class to earn a stable and sufficient income, but at least they are more informed of their rights through observing global changes and bring about change to the inequality problem in their country, just like in India, Tunisia, Egypt and China where the middle class or aspiring-to-be middle class are growing more aware of their power and ability to bring about change for a brighter future for themselves. Hence i still believe that a rising middle class would inevitably benefit themselves, but whether a bright future awaits truly depends on a multitude of circumstances which might be out of their control.
Josias this is a good answer! please strive to answer as thoroughly in your essays!
Claire Chong 2SA4
1. I feel that technology has helped to shape a more egalitarian society, because technology provides people with knowledge and skills to educate them. Hence, this has allowed people to achieve greater equality.
Digital technology such as the Internet has given people the courage to stand up for their rights. Through mediums such as twitter and Facebook, people can rally together and fight for equality and raise awareness about it. One such example is the Arab Spring. Through the use of social media, people stood up against their government for better equality in the country.
However, technology may lead to a greater divide between the rich and poor in society due to the costliness of technology. For example, only the rich would be able to pay for costly advanced medical technology while the poor would not be able to. However, with intervention by the government by means of medical subsidies, the overall effect of technology would be to promote a more egalitarian society.
Yeo Jia Xin 2SA4
I agree with Claire. I would just like to elaborate on how technology will cause greater income inequality in society. Technology has the ability to replace manual labour in the manufacturing industry, this will result in many lower skilled workers being retrenched and jobless. However, the higher skilled workers remain in the top tier of the society and get richer while the jobless remain unemployed, receiving no income. In such a case, as the income gap becomes larger, technology does not promote an egalitarian society.
Hazel Lim Si Min 2SB5
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
Majority of the world today have made use of technology to connect, communicate, and publicize. An individual’s opinion is immediately exposed to the rest of the globe with just a click in the Internet, and because of this power technology holds, many unhaerd views can reach the government, especially the voices of minority groups, enabling the government to make rational decisions for a more equal standard of living for all groups in society. Boosts in the sale or smartphones and internet can be seen even in countries like Africa.
However, many people still do not receive access to technology in developing countries, such as India. Globalization has enabled the rich to become richer, whilst the poor become more financially disadvantaged. Some of the poorest countries in the world, especially in Africa, may get even poorer. Their population is not as educated as in developed countries and they don’t have the new technology that we do. Education is not free in certain countries and as a result, poor people lack education. Without the skills required, they have no choice but to take on low-paying jobs, like farming, and the wages they earn are barely enough to secure daily necessities.
The issue of unequal access to technology has to be resolved first before it can move a society towards egalitarianism.
Q1. Do what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
I think that technology has led to a more egalitarian society to a alarge extent. Other than creating a platform for the youths to voice out their opinions and deserved rights like what everyone has mentioned, it also allows the general public to understand the tear-jerking situation on what the youths living under poverty and rights deprivation are living in through mass media such as reports or documentry videos. This enable even more people to sympathize with them and people from various countries might want to help them and initiate compaigns to pressurize the countries’ government to attend to the youths’ needs. Some kind souls will also make a trip to the villages and help them build infrastructures and specialized doctors can treat the patients there who had absolutely no access to medical treatment due to extreme poverty. Thus, technology not only allow the suffering party to stand up and fight for their own rights, it also enable others to help them and this will snowball to create a huge issue. This will result in governements taking more actions to help them due to globalized stress.
Sean Lee 2SA4
Discussion Questions:
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
1: All are equal, but some are more equal than others. As the government tries to promote equality, the rise of technology helps to reinforce it. As when corruptions occur in the country, internet can be used to expose the politicians wrong doing and to spread the message of equality in this way and to deter people from doing it again. For example, Kong Hee, a city harvest church pastor is accused of a fraud case and since then news went viral around the internet.
Sean, but what is the link between the city harvest incident and promoting equality in society?
Asher Mau 2SB5
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
Communication technology allows for people to actively communicate with the world outside of their immediate neighbourhood. That is to say, as the power of communication grows, in particular the access to internet facilities, the less “secluded” a particular group may be from the outside world. Thus their situations can be broadcast to the world, and provided that these situations are bad enough to move the general public, action will be called for by people worldwide. Governments feel the pressure not just from within the country, but face external pressure with the rise of technology.
At the same time, technology which provides convenience for everyday life has allowed the lower classes of society to have improvements in work conditions, amenities, and the like. While still a far cry from the richer classes of society, the improvements done do show an attempt to improve conditions to a set basic level (fit for humans to live in, at any rate).
It should be noted, however, that technology does not necessarily equate to a more egalitarian society. Consider the cost of technology, or the measures governments can take to block the outside world (think China!). These are measures which could potentially prevent a society from achieving equality.
I believe technology is now just starting to lead to a more egalitarian society. True, progress is slow. But in the end, progress is still being made.
OOI YEE JIA 2SB5
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
With the rise of the internet, it offers us a chance to take charge of our own lives and to redefine our role as citizens of local communities and of a global society. It also hands us the responsibility to govern ourselves, to think for ourselves, to educate our children, to do business honestly, and to work with fellow citizens to design rules we want to live by.
However, this is not always the case. In the case of the rich and the poor, the poor will not be able to afford such technology.Hence causing greater disparity between the rich and the poor.
In conclusion, I personally believe that provided with the availability of technology for all, the rise of technology will lead to a more egalitarian society.
Benjamin goh 2SA4
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
The middle class represents the majority of the populace of a country. Naturally, a rising middle class would result in increased in scrutiny of government measures and greater pressure on the government to put certain measure in place. However this may or may not result in the supposedly good outcome. Some measures which may be good for the people but unpopular may be hindered and delayed or worst still, scraped. Decisions may be slowed due to increased in public pressure which result in slower implementation. This cases would likely happen with the rise of a middle class. As such, it is difficult to establish in the rise in middle class is a good thing. Hence, i do not agree with these argument.
Equality is something that is difficult to achieve in this world. It is important to see what we regard as equality as total equality where everyone enjoys the same standard of living is an impossible scenario. In the budget 2012, the Singapore government has called for inclusive growth, however since then, little has changed. The income gap in Singapore remains one of the largest in the world and see no sign of decreasing. This is due to the simple fact that the rich do not just sit on their money but invest, generating more money while the poor, having almost no money after spending on basic necessities, is unable to increase their wealth. This situation is seen everywhere and is impossible to stop unless the government stops the rich from spending money which is a situation that would never happen. Hence inequality would always be prevalent. What we can only do is to slow the increase in inequality or at best keep it stagnant, Today, i believe creating a more equal future is near impossible but still achievable if harsh measures are put into place.
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
I personally feel that technology has led to a more egalitarian society. Technology such as the internet and social networks enable people to voice out their emotions and feelings. This way people also voice out their disappointment that the people have on the government. For example, the Dehli Rape Case which attained much media coverage has catalysed the government to work faster and efficiently on this issue. Furthermore, technology reduces the gap between the gender inequality. More people get to know about how gender inequality affects the subordinate gender through the use of social media such as Facebook and Blog, which then encourages the community to have equality as more people are able to voice out and make others hear them.
The above comment is done by Priyanka 2SB5
Q1.
Technology has contributed to the youth becoming more vocal and taking more action; leading to a more egalitarian society. Due to technological advancement, the youths are now readily accessible to gadgets such as mobile phones, computers and other devices, which enable them to voice out their opinions and share their views through social networking sites, thereby showing that youth are becoming more vocal. This also allowed like-minded people to identify each other and come together to take more action against what they feel that is wrong and unethical. For example, demonstrations against the Gaddafi regime in Libya are mainly planned through the use of social networking sites such as twitter and Facebook. Thereby this shows that technology has contributed to the youths taking more action; leading to a more egalitarian society.
Technology has allowed member of the public to capture evidences of the ill-doings by the government in the society, thereby being able to alert international communities and the public to look into the matter and eventually promotes a more egalitarian society. For example, Arab Spring Uprising was initially sparked off due to a Tunisia vendor Mohammed Bouazizi setting himself on fire due to police brutality when a female police officer insulted and slapped him. This incident was being captured on footage and later being posted on social networking sites, eventually it became viral and led to the public uprising, and a major issue of concern by the international communities.
Janice Soh 2SA4
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
I agree that the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things, however, the existence of some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future is inevitable because when there is no pain, there is no gain.
Yes, it is true that the government will be galvanised to act, but this becomes a problem when the government consists of incapable and corrupted leaders who easily succumb to satisfying their self-interests and personal gains rather than improving their society’s well-being. There is a huge difference in promising the people that action will be taken with actually carrying out the action. This could be seen in the case of the Indian gang-rape as mentioned in this article. Although policies have been placed in order to tighten securities, it may not be known to anyone whether or not a real change has occurred, or if there is a change, is it for the betterment of the society or worse. In the end, it all boils down to the government to shape the country they want to see in the future. Other obstacles the government could face includes limited resources and funds to support the rising middle class and also increasing income inequality.
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
Winston Churcill once said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with average voters. It is apparent that such argument might no longer valid in most developing economies of today. The rise of the middle class entails better education and well informed voters who are no longer ignorant and are critical of government policies and practices. Such thing contributes to a robust economic growth and political stability of a country. The former is attributed to better paying jobs for most citizens which obviously boosts their spending power and keeps the economy growing while the latter is because most voters are no longer susceptible to any form of provocations by interest groups and have better understanding of government policies.
Nonetheless, with an increasingly educated population and stronger purchasing power, other aspect of living might be compromised.
A more competitive labour market is inevitable as there are more prospective employees with similar qualifications. As a result, students will be forced to achieve stellar performances in their academic and social work. They will have less time for themselves and will be very much occupied in building their portfolios through sheer hard work.
A stronger purchasing power means an increase in demand for goods and services. In order to cope with this, there are two actions that suppliers could take. First, they could build more infrastructures and employ more workers, which will loosen up the job market, and is exactly the preferred outcome. Nonetheless, most firms usually cope with the increase in economic demand by imposing longer work hour on their employees. In most cases, especially with countries like Singapore where availability of resources are very much constrained by its relatively small size, the latter course of action is preferred as it is relatively cheaper and less risky.
Of course we are then faced with longer working hour and an increasingly demanding workplace. We have less time to spend with relatives and people important to us. In the end of the day, we might not even have the time to spend the money that we sacrifice so much of our time for.
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
Technology has aided in shaping our society to an egalitarian one. As mentioned in the article, advances in technology has enabled cheap computing power via cellphones and tablets over the last decade has dramatically lowered the costs of connectivity and education. This have empowered the lower-class with access to imformation and knowledge that were once out of their reach, enabling them to reach out to the vast banks of virtual information of the information-superhighway of today. With such wisdom, they are now able to make more rational and informed choices instead of unknowledgeable ones. This has certainly opened the window of opportunity for them to seek out opportunities that are placed within the society.
Whilst this may be true that the lower-class are now enabled to make the right decision, it might not neccessarily be true that they have benefitted. The only real gain they have recieved from technology is cheaper communication costs and not any other materialistic gains. Only if they were to use the knowledge granted accessible to them to seek out opportunities for better paying jobs, they are still trapped with their low-paying jobs and poor living conditions. Hence, technology has aided in shaping our society to be an egalitarian one by giving the lower-class the possibility to climb up to the middle-class but its only a possibility and not a definite result.
Jonathan Peh 2SA4
2. According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
The rise of the middle class as a result of more people being educated will definitely improve the quality of life of people as they will be able to afford higher quality goods and a wider variety which improves their material standard of living. However, in the Patriarchal society of India where the social stigmatization of women is still prevalent, the quality of life of Women in the social aspect might not necessarily change for the better. The existence of this chasm in terms of social standing may hinder the development of the Country as Women may still continue to be deprived of educational and job opportunities which remains as the idle resources that the country possess.
Quek Hock Cheong 2SA4
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
Technology has given a window of opportunity for people to create a more egalitarian society, especially in this day and age where it allows people to be interconnected through the internet. Technology has reached a stage by which even the lower income populaces are allowed to own a part of it. What makes the internet an effective tool to equalize the masses is how it does not discriminate, allowing for everyone to post comments and share their ideas. Social media websites have also sprung up to further amplify the internet’s ability to connect people. The Arab Spring incident shows us how social media such as Twitter allowed people to stage an uprising against the government in order to bring equality to the people.
However, technology can also bring about further divide between the classes in society. As Josias pointed out, only the material well being of the people rises with the improvement in technology whereas the non-material aspects cannot be quantified easily. Technology acts as a catalyst to boost people higher, however the wealthy benefit more from this exchange, as they have access to the newest gadgets and breakthroughs. Hence, this gap between the higher and lower income classes is bound to continuously increase and that true “equality” in most cases can never be attained.
Zhang Qiongsihan 2SA4
To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
Answer:
Technology, especially the Internet and media, serve as a means to provide people with information and knowledge. With the Internet and media, people will be able to know more news happened in the world and hence, they are aware of more unjustified cases and ways to fight for their rights. The educational level does not hinder one person to preserve his or her basic rights. Hence, when people face the unfair situation, they are capable to fight for their rights through laws. Hence, our society becomes more egalitarian.
According to the article, the rise of the middle class is supposed to spell good things- the government will be galvanised to act, more people will get to enjoy a better quality of life etc. Do you agree with this argument? What are some obstacles that stand in the way of the supposed brighter, more equal future?
As the middle class is rising, there will be more vocal citizens in a country and this will push the government to look closer into the needs of her people. However, there is a danger to this situation. When people are able to exert so much influence on the government, there is a very high propensity that the government will be a populist one. Populist government is more interested in keeping their terms in the office by implementing popular policies that might not necessarily be the good option for the county. For example, as Greek middle class was rising and becoming more proactive in the making of government policies, Greece government was driven to appease her people by constantly giving unemployment benefits and a multitude of other welfare benefits without realisng that the country’s debts are pilling every year. As a result, we now witness Greece being trapped in a quagmire of financial indebtedness and massive unemployment. Instead of improving the quality of life, the rise of the middle class can in fact deteriorate the living standards in a country.
Ernest Low 2SA4
1. Technology has enabled society to become more egalitarian through several ways. With the rise of the digital age, the people has become more interconnected and are able to receive news at a greater rate. Now, even the poor are kept in the loop.
The popularity of social networking sites have further propelled the people’s ability to express their feelings and sentiments freely, allowing people of like-mindedness to congregate. As seen in Arab Spring, the people were able to revolt to achieve equality.
However, sometimes equality may not be achieved due to the difference in income levels within the society. The rich benefit more than the poor as they have the purchasing power to access the latest gadgets and technology. Hence, the gap between the rich and poor might be worsened, which is counterproductive to the aim of a more egalitarian society.
I personally feel that technology has indeed led to a more egalitarian society. This is because technology is equipped with skills and unlimited knowledge for us to learn from. Technology has been constantly used as a platform for people to voice out their opinions about certain controversial issues. For example, in Singapore, it is known that we are given the freedom of speech, many Singaporeans like to give their two cents worth on the internet especially Facebook. Politicians have also used these technologies to interact with their citizens, to create a stronger bond between each other.
However I also feel that technology can sometimes divide the society. In Singapore, it is very common for all of us to access the respective technologies. However in third world countries, technology would be hard to come by and only the rich can afford it. Since many information are spread around world through the use of technology, people that do not have access to technology would not have the ability to discover those information.
2. I believe this is true that it should spell good things with the rising middle class being able to express their views. With more people giving their input and their ideas, certainly the Government would have more solutions to the problems they face. Furthermore, more concerns would be raised and with the Government’s solution of these problems they might not have known about, more people would indeed enjoy a better quality of life.
With that said, with the rising middle class, the Government now has to cater to much more needs than they had before and especially in such big countries as India, the improvement to the quality of life would not be felt. More importantly, with the knowledge now that they empower being the middle class, they would be more easily dissatisfied with the Government and their policies and instead would not enjoy a better quality of life.
One huge obstacle would be the logistical nightmare of trying to cope with 300million different requests and processing them. With so many complaints and suggestions to better improve the country, sieving out the truly legitimate requests they have to and must resolve would be near impossible and instead leaves the people dissatisfied at all their unresolved queries.
Tiffany Soh 2AA1
1. To what extent has technology led to a more egalitarian society?
With the vast improvements made to technology in recent years, such as improvements in Internet technology, scientific technology, mass communications technology, and transportation technology, society has certainly become more egalitarian.
Internet and mass communications technology allows people around the world to receive more and a greater variety of information than ever before. This enables them to form their own opinions, ideas, and ideals, as well as become more discerning of the information that they receive.
Scientific and transportation technology helps to improve people’s quality of lives. Better and more commercial medical equipment and treatments gives everyone a chance to receive the medical attention and help that they require. Improved transportation systems and machinery, as well as more accessible commercial vehicles, provides everyone with more efficient and cheaper modes of transportation.
Thus, technology has certainly led to a more equal, egalitarian society.