Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Charity and the retrenched

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Charity and the retrenched

Mr Tan,
What exactly is the legal definition of "Charity"? I am somewhat confused by the "We Are One" campaign which is enjoying an unprecendented TV coverage, to solicit public donations.

Why are retrenched people who can't find jobs, being lumped with the traditional Charity recipients, as in, chronic sick, aged, infirm, homeless, destitute. Is this legal? Surely a lot of retrenched people get at lease some retrenchment benefits whilst those really in dire need e.g. kidney patients, poor sickly aged people, are actually more deserving of :charity: money?

Why are "those affected by the economic downturn" now being sanctioned by the government as charity recipients?

Who isn't affected by the economic downturn, it is a question of the "degree". How do you qualify to get this charity money? Who is the judge? this is very important. Everyone would like to say he is affected terribly by the economic downturn!

I went to "weareone" website to find outmore. The FAQ just tells you how to donate, not telling how the money is administered, who qualifies to get it, how, when, who, zilch!

The website, as in the tV clips, said that the donation is for those "affected by the economic downturn". this is a very vague statement for me to part with my donation money, which could also be given to a kidney patient in financial trouble.

I am quite traditional, i still think that if retrenched people cannot find work and is in financial trouble, it is the Government's duty to generate jobs, or have a system to cushion the impact.

Is it a shift in the policy to pass the burden of supporting jobless people to the rest of the people with jobs, and the government will wash half its hands off the burden of generating jobs, by putting the jobless on charity? I wonder if the small boy on tv who felt proud of contributing the lego bricks, does he know wht he is doing?

In summary, I don't feel comfortable at all constantly being bombarded by the media in the last few weeks, and not getting any wiser going to their website.

What does everyone here think? Tell me, am I being selfish, oversensitive and unreasonable?

REX

18 comments:

Anonymous said...: Now that you mention i vaguely recall something about lego bricks LOL.

I don't bother with charity these days ever since NKF decided to sue some whistle blowers.

So WeAreOne? I have no idea what it is and do not care.; November 22, 2009 11:43 PM
Anonymous said...: The retrenched, the jobless are left to fend for themselves.
Don't beleive in all these.
Many older people hv been living on their savings after being "jobless" for many years.
Any help?? No.
Help u to find job?? Ha Ha, it is a joke. How to find a job for the older people?; November 23, 2009 7:21 AM
Everlearning said...: Rex, I felt uneasy about this hugh publicity given to this kind of charity. The money donated probably goes to pay for the costs of publicity rather than the real reason for it.

I sense this is one of the so-called creative ways of a fresh start of the "big-time charity show" to get everyone excited about it after all those scandals that surfaced in the past could be too difficult for us to forget.

A better way is to look around and see who needs help.; November 23, 2009 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: I've always believed that charity
fund raising events are for the benefit of the sick, the elderly and the disabled. The Govt has even passed the buck of helping the unemployed to Singaporeans, washing its hands off forking out
public funds to help.
This leggo way of soliciting funds is innovative no doubt about that.
But what are they going to do with the leggo bricks after the exercise, donate to poor housholds with children or .... What a waste of the plastic lot.; November 23, 2009 12:19 PM
Christine said...: I totally agree with Everlearning.

I am against donating to tv charity shows. I read in the papers that it can cost 1 million dollars to put up the show. Am I wrong to conclude that the first one million dollars benefit the tv station?

Why must Singaporeans wait for a charity drive to help the poor?

If everyone of us just look around and help those who are in need, Singapore will be a much better place to live in.

Many old people are living on their savings, but with the almost zero interest rats how long can thier savings last?

WE are expected to work as long as we live, but what about the old people who are too sickly to work?

It is sad to hear that Singapore is doing so well economically and is first in this and that, when one is aware that in reality so many are suffering in silence.

I think that the wealth created benefits only the top 20% income group.; November 23, 2009 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: REX,
You are not being selfish, only that your eyes are now open to the unique situation in Singapore where there is the constant promise of the future. Remember the promise of the Swiss standard of living? Now there is a new promise! Promises are free. There is a long time span of discretion before people realise that it is just an empty promise. Meanwhile, the one who promises get what he wants and moved on when the time for the delivery of promise comes.
You are right in saying that this is a surreptitious way of shifting the responsibility of looking after those who are retrenched back to the people itself. Over time, people will start to believe that it is not the govt's responsibility anymore and will not link it to the govt non-performance in this area.
The problem remains that of too many cheap foreigners competing with the locals, but the problem is also conveniently swept under the carpet by repeating the statement that we need foreigners to survive. All one needs is to look at Hong Kong for a comparative analysis. In Hong Kong now the starting pay for new graduates has moved from a few thousand HK dollars to over ten thousand a month and they are definitely not on the verge of a financial or economic collapse as often touted by the local authorities in Singapore that Singapore will be finished if we do not have low wages. Isn't it an irony that we must have ultra high wages for those who say that Singapore needs low wages to survive? The statement that if we do not pay high wages people will become corrupt is the most stupid statement I have heard recently. The actual result of that statement is to help white collar criminals rationalise their action since it came from a well respected senior stateman. No wonder there is an increasing number of people who are paying themselves high salaries and not delivering on results. Over time, people will imbibe this culture of money worship and the country will be the worst for it.; November 23, 2009 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Another meaning for charity is cons job. They should spelt as chearity, using the innocent face of charity to cheat people of their money.

Look at the Christian father, Durai and that shameless monk. The use charity to earn a luxurious living.; November 23, 2009 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Do consider this:

If you feel like donating money, your dollars can get more mileage in poor countries like Laos, Cambodia or some of the African countries (many living on just $2 a day), rather than in Singapore.

As for the We Are One charity, as it seems it is not very transparent on how the money collected is to be used and on whom, perhaps someone or the regulator can check how much of the collections is used to pay for the ads/TVCs that eventually end up with MediaCorp (ie the government)?; November 23, 2009 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: The ruling party is very smart to use "rich" people to donate and help the poor people. But these "rich" people may not be able to drive big cars and stay in big houses.

So end up the "super rich" people get away from being heavily taxed by the ruling party if S'pore is a welfare state!

Another "collaboration" between the super rich in the public sector helping the super rich in the private sector?; November 23, 2009 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Rex

You are not being selfish, oversensitive and unreasonable. I think there are many who need help but don't get it. Someone in his 50s got retrenched, wife has cancer. He has to look after young daughter and wife. He struggles to meet his bills. Nobody helps him. Where is CHARITY?; November 23, 2009 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi Rex!
Here's a simple rule of thumb I use whenever I see a public initiative like the one you highlighted.

"Anything good, THEY won't call me."

THEY will call me when they want me to donate my money, blood, organs and time(volunteer).

Singapore does not owe me a living. But I owe Singapore a living.

Like someone here said earlier. Be a mercenary. Always ask how does this benefit me?

If some people need high pay to be honest, I also need high pay to donate money.; November 23, 2009 7:24 PM
My foot said...: Charity begins at home

look within.; November 23, 2009 11:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Charity: an industry !!!

Want to know more, meet Sister Teresa (110 yo) who stay in Hougang Ave 1.; November 24, 2009 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: REX comments,
let's be reasonable, to get mega-funds for charity, innovative modern business methods are ok. Teresa Hsu as a single person, can only do limited collections, but if we use modern mass-media methods (such as NKF shows etc), we should be able to solicit much, more funds to benefit the deserving. But the efforts must have an underlying structure, and full transparency to the public, especially in light of so many scandals under the guise of charity.

Right now going to the http://weareone.com.sg website, I feel really uncomfortable as I can't see the name of a registered charity setup which i can feel comfortable with to manage the donations received, in a professional manner. In the website, I only see the big names of businesses, Ion, Lego, Capitalland, Mediacorp. I am still keen to know the mechanics of the distribution process of the funds received, because the vague statement "those affected by the economic recession" in my opinion is an extremely untraditional definition of "charity".

Since all charities in a way compete for donor money, the weareone campaign need to identify itself how it fits in with other charities. Right now, the campaign is enjoying a lot of special publicity just because a top level person made the call.

This blog has a very large readership. I am sure at least some people inside the weareone group, would also read these posts, and would have enough compassion and knowledge to make some counter comments on my possibly incorrect and bad implications in my post. In fact that top level person can also comment. There is nothing wrong with that, if it is indeed in the interests of helping the needy.

REX; November 24, 2009 12:13 PM
ziiro said...: Have people forgotten about the recent "charity" events so quickly? I'm not trying to be cynical, but hey, last time we were donating to diabetics and no profit hospital, and this time we are donating to wat? "those affected by the economic recession"?? Hmm maybe donating to town council , temasek holding, and ministers with pay cut? Fit the description ya?; November 24, 2009 8:23 PM
Mrs Ong said...: What Charity???

I was packing my son's room and found tons of old, good condition books, toys and clothes.

I wrote to 3 children homes in Singapore if they need any of those things but not one responded to me.

After 2 weeks, I decided to call them instead. I was told they don't need those things instead if I want I could donate MONEY.

LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!; November 25, 2009 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Charity or not, I think the fact remains that there are indeed retrenched people out there who are genuinely affected, and are sort of in a back shape as they have no $$ to meet their immediate needs. When we donate, we should give with the benefit of a doubt. We have to trust the FCS, etc to dish out the require help to those in real need. ~; November 25, 2009 2:48 PM
poor said...: There should be no scope for ambiguity when it comes to using the charity money !!!; December 22, 2009 4:53 PM