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)