Mr Brown website
Deafening silence of corporate philanthrophy
Finally some semblance of reason
I was pretty angry at the posts in the first 2 links. I have said this before, and I will say it again: It is far too easy to criticise other people and then hide behind an excuse and thus absolving yourself of all blame, when others ask why aren't you doing the same thing.
If you are such a philanthrophist, why don't I see you rushing to donate to every other charity which comes along?
Perhaps my most important point is, companies are companies, businessmen are businessmen. People should not EXPECT them to donate all the time. If they do, it is out of their goodwill etc, but we have no right nor claim to their wealth. Whether they donate or not is up to them and none of our god damn business. The way that some people write as though they EXPECT people to donate is downright pathetic. Until we are in a situation which allows us to donate $500,000 and have done so, we have no rights to complain about how much they donate. It is THEIR money. If we were in their shoes, would we donate $1 million? Think about it.
Let me draw an analogy. Imagine you are the richest among a group of friends, by a long way. If any of your friends had financial problems, they would look for you first. Ask yourself, would you feel du lan? Ah you will say since you are so rich, it doesn't matter right? Yeah once or twice, it doesn't matter. But what if it happens everytime? Are your pockets limitless? You better wish they are, for they will keep on coming and coming...
Everytime there is a donation drive, you can bet your ass that the big corporations will be the first targets, quite rightly so too. But when everyone does that, what happens? You kill the golden goose, that's what happens. Big companies have shareholders to answer to too. Throwing $1 million at every donation drive which knocks on its door is an invitation for the shareholders to kick out the management.
It is all too easy criticising other people behind a computer screen and keyboard. (Oops, isn't that what I am doing now?).
Another thing is, although I had said I am rather disappointed with myself for not feeling more for the victims of the tragedy, I also do not expect other people to wallow in misery. The second link I posted wrote about a NTU webring he came across and how the students in it all seemed so apathetic because of the mundane complaints in their blogs. COME ON, get REAL. Not blogging about the disaster does not mean they do not care about it. People keep blogs for various reasons, to let their friends know what is going on, to be a sort of diary etc. Some of them might not want to write about it because their friends might not want to read about it. It does not mean they are being apathetic. What did they expect anyway? Everybody to cry and sulk the whole day? As what one of my friend said, life still must go on. The worst thing to happen right now is for the whole world to indulge in misery, stop spending and thus leading to a downward spiral in the global economy. Perhaps its a bit sadistic, but economies grow through optimism about the future. Without economic growth, where is all the spare cash for donations going to come from?
Optimism is the best cure for global economic woes. (TosH - Jan 2005)
The last link contains a post which had some really interesting points. And some of which I agree wholeheartedly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Kind of you to comment on my post.
The crux of my argument is this. The best people to donate are the corporations. There is no doubt about this. It is not the issue of being "du lan" when your friend needs your help.
Let carry your analogy furthur,If your friend is in dire straits, and none of the other friends can help, being rich, and being 'du lan', you gonna let him die?
Of course, the whole system will collapse if all your poorer friends take advantage of you, and ask spurious requests for money
(which is your argument)
The tsunami is clearly not this case.
Would you be angry if not a single corporation donated? Surely.
But why are you not angry when corporations donate say $1000? Based on your arguement, you would support their actions, because , "they have shareholders to answer to'.
So does that mean that as long as the donation is >$1, it is fine and dandy for big companies?
if not, surely there is a lower limit for donations in proportion with earnings. That is what I'm arguing for, donations in proportion with their immense profits.
I know critizing this would not change things, but there is a need to point this out nonetheless.
Thanks for responding to my post,
I tried to add a comment, but it did not register. but I'll say it again, so here goes.
It is a very common to blame the critic, to say "if you are so good, why don't you do it yourself", which is nonsensical. I shall not address this. i shall address your arguments only.
Using your analogy of "rich friends, poor friends", if your friends is in dire straits. none of your other friends can contribute enough to help him. As the significantly richer one, just because you are 'du lan', you leave him to die?
I must contend that this system will collapse if all your friends take advantage of you and ask for spurious request for money. But this tsunami disaster is surely not the case.
My main argument is that corporations should donate amounts that are in porportion with their immense earnings.
Put it simply, if all the corporations in Singapore donate nothing. will you feel outraged?
What if all the corporations donate $1 each? Based on your argument, you would defend their kind actions, because according to you, "they have shareholders to answer to".
Surely there is a realistic lower limit for the donation amount. Surely the logical lower limit would be based on how big/rich the corporation is.
Does that mean that corporations have shareholders to answer to, and are for-profit, they act totally socially-irresponsibly? They can destroy the envrioment, exploit third world workers?
go to this link http://www.citizenworks.org/enron/corp_code.php
Sure, corporations must choose what causes to support. (Arts, Environment etc)
They don't throw money at every charity that badger them. But for such a catastrophe, and so major an event, don't you think it should be the priority?
What if you see Company A donate $10,000 for the disaster, and $100,000 the next day for the Arts? Would you be outraged? surely.
Again, I know that commenting on this issue will not change things, but does that mean we shouldn't say it?
Corporations can definately do better that what they are doing now.
I don't know if you believe me or not but if all the big corporations do not donate, I will not feel outraged. I guess I am a cynical person. They are under no obligation to donate at all. Of course if they do, it is great, but if they don't I won't feel any outrage towards the corporation at all. Maybe you just have a more idealistic view towards life, I happen to be more cynical. If a company chooses to donate more to arts than say tsunami victims, my reaction would not be to criticise it either, because it may feel that donating to the arts would benefit its brand or whatever more. So in short, I still don't agree that corporations SHOULD donate in proportion to their earnings. They are under no obligation to do so.
Post a Comment