Charity Cynic

Charity seems to be the hot topic of recent times and the surge brought about by the Tsunami tragedy. Yet it is still left to the question of how much do we really understand from the word charity? I have discussed certain aspects of it in my blog Charitable Heart and apparently there are others who feel the same. Could it be the word charity has been abused? I have decided to attach in here an article written by veteran Straits Times columnist, Sumiko Tan:

Jan 16, 2005 The problem with charity
To give is divine but what if the intention behind the giving is less than charitable?

I'VE always been wary of the word 'charity'.

For one, I pray I never have to be in a position where I have to beg for anyone's charity.

This, I suppose, is a result of growing up in a society that eschews handouts and emphasises self-made success.

Another reason is that the word 'charity' smacks of condescension - to me, at least.

It conjures up the image of a rich personage standing in his gilded balcony bestowing his largesse on a quivering, grateful mass of the unwashed below.

I am, of course, being uncharitable (and dramatic), putting it like this.

Don't get me wrong. I've no doubt that the milk of human kindness runs deep in the human species, and it is what has nourished us and kept us going as a race.

What I mean is that the word 'charity', for all its noble origins and intentions, has taken on a I'm-better-than-thou association.

Words like 'compassion', 'mercy' and 'kindness' depict better the values that 'charity' stands for.

But I'm quibbling over semantics.

This column is about how recent events have proven that the world is not short on charity/compassion/mercy/kindness, call it what you will.

Witness the outpouring of help, both monetary and in kind, for victims of the tsunami.

Still, I wonder, what is charity, really?

To give is, of course, divine. But what if the intention behind the giving is a bit more fuzzy? Does the act of charity still stand up to scrutiny, then?

For example, a person who goes out of his way to help a stranger is undoubtedly charitable and should be praised.

But what if this same person turns a blind eye to the needs of his immediate family and neighbours? (And I do know people like that.) Would he still be considered charitable?

If you are willing to take a week's leave from work to fly off to Banda Aceh to help the victims of the tsunami, that is truly laudable and I applaud you.

But how many would take leave to offer their services to, say, the Ren Ci Hospital in Jalan Tan Tock Seng? Or the leprosy home in Lorong Buangkok? Or is that sort of altruistic work less rewarding?

I don't mean to question or devalue the goodness of well-intentioned volunteers. I'm sure the majority offered their services with a pure and compassionate heart. And charity is charity, whether you do it at home or in Trincomalee.

Besides, I who have been sitting on my butt these few weeks and who have done nothing significant to help, should be the last person to criticise anyone.

But the cynic in me does wonder: Could there be slivers of selfishness buried in this great outpouring of help?

How much of it has to do with the 'glamour' of the tsunami tragedy and wanting to be in the thick of 'action'? With wanting to acquire the bragging rights and war wounds of having been involved in modern history's worst natural disaster?

Some of you would tell me to get real: Nobody's perfect. What's wrong with little specks of personal selfishness if actions result in overall good, if help is indeed rendered and lives improved?

I don't know.

Then there is the question of quantifying charity.

Is a person who donates $50 less charitable than one who gives $500? Or should one's charity quotient be pegged to a percentage of his income?

Is Bill Gates, who donated US$3 million to tsunami relief, less charitable than Michael Schumacher, who gave US$10 million? Correspondingly, is Schumacher a 'better' person? And Gates more 'stingy'? Then again, if you announce your charitable deed - presumably to show how generous you are - is that embracing the true spirit of altruism?

If you donate clothes and shoes you no longer have use for, is that charity? Or is the true test giving away something you treasure?

Then there is 'conditional' charity.

Spend $10 and $1 will go to charity, say some shops. Charity? Or cashing in on the situation?

THE problem with charity is fatigue.

As the German playwright Bertolt Brecht once wrote: 'A man who sees another man on the street corner with only a stump for an arm will be so shocked the first time, he'll give him sixpence.

'But the second time it'll only be a threepenny bit. And if he sees him a third time, he'll cold-bloodedly have him handed over to the police.'

The demands of charity today are non-stop and overwhelming.

You get pleas in the mail. Letters are addressed personally to you in pretty cursive font, imploring you to write a cheque to improve the life of a disfigured child whose story is related in the most heart-rending way possible.

You get appeals in the newspaper asking you to sponsor the meals of disadvantaged students.

You get donation tins thrust in your face as you walk down Orchard Road. You get people asking you to buy tissue paper. You get fund-raising shows on TV urging you to phone in a donation.

To be a 'successful' charity today, it's all about branding and marketing.

It's all about creating a three-hour show or a three-page pamphlet cleverly packaged to tug, not only at the heartstrings, but also purse strings.

Society is becoming so desensitised to suffering that charities have to trot out more and more dramatic images of suffering - real and manufactured.

TV charity shows are an example, juxtaposing sad images of sick people with beautiful actresses sweating with fear as they attempt dangerous stunts.

It also explains why the tsunami got such an overwhelming response. The images of extreme suffering, packaged and shown non-stop on global TV, moved people to action.

The true test of how compassionate one really is will be six months down the road, when Banda Aceh no longer merits a headline.

Will there still be hundreds of volunteers queueing up to help rebuild the lives there?

Call me cynical, but I fear not.

And that, I think, will be another tragedy.