Bourgeoisie versus proletariat?

Why is it that the politically-saavy urban middle class folks seem to be so much less concerned about their rural counterparts? In all the discourse about democracy, freedom and human rights, there seems to be a lack of mentioning of the plight of the rural peoples. What do they want? Has anyone bothered to ask?

The online press and the so-called "new media practitioners"(who are the worst offenders) often only report what is being discussed among urban middle-class civil society, but rarely give much of, if any coverage about the rural poor (or for that matter, also the urban poor). Unless of course there happens to be a by election going on at the time. All that you read in the media, new and old alike, is mostly just the kind of he-says-she-says coverage of the "upper echelons of society", i.e. politicians, artsy-fartsy-I-read-Kafka-and-Dostoyevsky types and kopitiam political analysts (who probably mostly get their fix at a Starbucks just so they can use the free WiFi to "stay connected").

Reporting of rural peoples are often reduced to "horny father rapes daughter" or "mak cik who sells pisang goreng for 20 years decides to sell fried cempedak and makes it big by buying a kancil". Stories that are either trying to give you the impression that rural folks are hillbillies or that are trying to make you go "aaawwww...poor people are so cute" like they're some race of fuzzy little bunnies.

While one could always point out that it's more difficult to get the poor and rural peoples organized (because they actually have to work hard for a living!), why haven't any of their urban iPod-carrying, camera-snapping, blog-reading, Obama-lovin', facebook-ing, twittering, feminist, civil rights activist, indie musician, actor/artist wannabe brethen reached across the divide to find out what's up in say...Sekinchan! Or Kuala Lipis? Just as an exercise to understand what matters to people in different parts of the country.

Thus far, the only references to the plight of the poor in this "struggle for democracy" are mostly used within the context of making the arguments of those who are speaking out to sound more credible. "Be fair to all races in order to help the poor!", is often the tag line. On the most part, it would seem to be mere lipservice rather than a show of any real genuine concern, because how many people really elaborate on what are these poor people issues? It gives the impression that somehow it is only possible to get rid of poverty only after you get rid of race.

It can't be denied that city dwellers have access to more means of communication and hence are able to air their issues better. So perhaps it might take some effort on the part of the city slickers to help bring rural issues to the table and into the media at large.

Otherwise, whatever "change" that comes next will only serve to disenfranchise the poorer urban and rural classes, and we might just move from race-based politics only to end up in a situation of class-based politics much like in many parts of the world. And class in many cases is just as ugly as race.