I refer to the letter, “We should not let social class stratify us” (Dec 31, 2017). On the topic of socio-economic stratification, I would say that class division is not a new phenomenon. It has always existed in our society.

What has changed, however, is the extent of the income gap.

Singapore’s Gini coefficient (which typically measures income inequality and a higher score indicates greater inequality) stood at 0.402 in 2016 after factoring in government wealth redistribution. Although this was reported as the lowest level observed in a decade, it remains higher than that in other neighbouring nations such as Japan (0.330), Switzerland (0.297), and South Korea (0.295).

This inequality has led to a corresponding divergence in habits and lifestyles, making the gulf between the haves and have-nots increasingly visible.

Opportunities for interaction across class lines have also become more limited. This is most pronounced in our education system, where certain institutions have become strongly associated with the upper class, despite the use of merit-based and need-blind admission.

A study on schools and class divide, released in 2016 by the Singapore Children’s Society, found that children from higher socio-economic backgrounds are likelier to attend secondary schools and their affiliated primary schools which had higher admission requirements, as well as those that offer the Gifted Education Programme.

One might posit that increased class consciousness stems not from any conscious desire to be envious or competitive, but rather from an instinctive dread: That individual merit is no longer sufficient to succeed, and that there are more variables involved in order to catch up with the better performers.

What we need are economic or education opportunities that promote upward mobility, as well as measures to rein in consumer prices such that disparities in material living standards are not as obvious.