Charitable Causes

[jw5]

I have 2 points about donating to charitable causes.

1. People should be judged on how much money they donate and not how much money they make. Especially in this economic crisis, it's time for the rich and well off to start giving back to the less fortunate. Let's start with the well paid (and in some cases overpaid) corporate executives, especially from the financial sector, businessmen, heirs of rich people and government officials. Do your part and help the needy, not from your company or country reserves, but from your own reserves. Get some good karma for you and your descendents. You and your descendents have more than enough money to spend for a few lifetimes, help those who are really struggling just to put food on their table.

2. Not all charitable causes are deserving or really needy. We already know of some charitable organizations and their officers who have let down their donors and the people they are supposed to collect money for.
I have also heard of beggars who are collecting money because they are supposedly needy, but they are not worthy of sympathy. One guy is supposedly blind but once in a while, he will look at his expensive handphone for messages. Another lady sells tissue paper at exorbitant prices, which would be ok if she were needy, but she spends her afternoons in the cinema with her legs up on the chair in front of her.
Be careful who and what you donate to as well. Some of these "charitable causes" are bullshitters.

 

[Angelo]

give to the recipients directly. if u can.

otherwise. put in own pocket.

 

[lolabunny]

Well this old lady I bought noodles for seemed to be still selling tissue. I say hi to her once in awhile and she seems to be struggling with life, supporting young grandchildren etc.

There are genuine cases, perhaps giving to individual are better than giving to local large organizations which are capable of fund raisers. How about orphanages in this country? There seems to be very little publicity for them.

There are international organizations like Red Cross and World Vision, Doctors without Borders etc, which really do hard hitting work.

 

[jw5]

give to the recipients directly. if u can.

otherwise. put in own pocket.

Yes, but make sure that you find out that the people are really needy and deserving.
Their character matters as well.

 

[jw5]

Well this old lady I bought noodles for seemed to be still selling tissue. I say hi to her once in awhile and she seems to be struggling with life, supporting young grandchildren etc.

There are genuine cases, perhaps giving to individual are better than giving to local large organizations which are capable of fund raisers. How about orphanages in this country? There seems to be very little publicity for them.

There are international organizations like Red Cross and World Vision, Doctors without Borders etc, which really do hard hitting work.

Well, if you know that she really needs help and she is hard working and pleasant, do continue to help her.
This also applies to organizations, some of which have become more like corporations than charities.

 

[lolabunny]

Well, if you know that she really needs help and she is hard working and pleasant, do continue to help her.
This also applies to organizations, some of which have become more like corporations than charities.

Why don't you do your part. You've got deeper pockets than me. Skiver.

 

[jw5]

Why don't you do your part. You've got deeper pockets than me. Skiver.

What makes you think I've got deeper pockets than you?
How do you know I'm not doing my part?

 

[scroobal]

I have 2 points about donating to charitable causes.

.

Charities need not exist if the Govt plays a role in providing the basics in terms of food and shelter for the needy and the disabled. Higher taxes is expected but its a better way.

Charities tend to be focused to a particular theme or need but it might not reflect truly the needs of the needy. There is no mechanism in the private charity sector to allow for equitable allocation of donations.

There are a lots of people who are having a jolly good time while being employed by charities. The accounts are also not transparent. I am talking about about well known charities. Unlike in the US, where charities who have tax exemption must reveal the necessary acounts to the public including the money spent on the intended beneficiaries.

Charities tend to focus on 3rd world countries where they feed the starving majority while the dictatorship uses it limited budget to pay its standing army. In effect charities are helping to prop these regimes. Why bother feeding the people when charities have been in these countries for decades.

Most idiots have no clue what % of their donations actually goes to the intended beneficiary. For NKF it was less than 10 cents to the dollar and it went on for years.

Like pigeons, if you hand out money to a beggar, the govt will do nothing and it just goes on and on.

 

[Ah Guan]

Damn straight! Before we even touch on transparency... There are just certain functions of the state that fundamentally cannot be privatised.

It's just shocking how things are heading -- homeland security (Cisco Certis), military (gurkha), welfare (NKF, Renci) ... all being outsourced to the lowest tenderer.

Besides being prone to corruption and abuse, these state functions run into the danger of failure when the economy falters.

Charities need not exist if the Govt plays a role in providing the basics in terms of food and shelter for the needy and the disabled. Higher taxes is expected but its a better way.

Charities tend to be focused to a particular theme or need but it might not reflect truly the needs of the needy. There is no mechanism in the private charity sector to allow for equitable allocation of donations.

There are a lots of people who are having a jolly good time while being employed by charities. The accounts are also not transparent. I am talking about about well known charities. Unlike in the US, where charities who have tax exemption must reveal the necessary acounts to the public including the money spent on the intended beneficiaries.

Charities tend to focus on 3rd world countries where they feed the starving majority while the dictatorship uses it limited budget to pay its standing army. In effect charities are helping to prop these regimes. Why bother feeding the people when charities have been in these countries for decades.

Most idiots have no clue what % of their donations actually goes to the intended beneficiary. For NKF it was less than 10 cents to the dollar and it went on for years.

Like pigeons, if you hand out money to a beggar, the govt will do nothing and it just goes on and on.

 

[scroobal]

There are just certain functions of the state that fundamentally cannot be privatised.
]

Absolutely. Something this govt will not understand.

Look at the cost comparison of medicine for Malaysians and Singaporeans even though a small straits separates the 2 countries.

Singaporeans have been raised by this govt to think that they are failures if they are sick and disabled. The fact that they used to be productive and paid taxes for many years does not seem to count. A sad society.

 

[jw5]

Absolutely. Something this govt will not understand.

Look at the cost comparison of medicine for Malaysians and Singaporeans even though a small straits separates the 2 countries.

Singaporeans have been raised by this govt to think that they are failures if they are sick and disabled. The fact that they used to be productive and paid taxes for many years does not seem to count. A sad society.

The fact is that they look after the country as a whole, and those who are able to contribute to the country first.
Those who are needy, poor, disabled, weak, etc are given bits at most and sometimes perhaps not even treated as well as foreigners who come here simply to earn money and will ultimately go back to their own countries.
They have not realized all these years that in governing a country, the priority is the weakest citizen. Once they have resolved their basic problems and needs, then they need to move on to the next priority. Instead, they seem to have inverted their priorities.
The only way to create this realization is at the polls. But if most Singaporeans are happy with the current situation, then so be it.

Having said that, we should still continue give to charitable causes, but only to those who are really needy, worthy of help and deserving of sympathy. And this should start with the rich corporate executives, businessmen, government officials, and descendents of wealth.

 

[lolabunny]

What makes you think I've got deeper pockets than you?
How do you know I'm not doing my part?

I didn't say you weren't doing your part. Just giving you a nudge on that.

You are so free hanging out here at the forum, must be financially better off than me lo.

 

[etherc]

Red Cross had its share of embezzlement cases as well. Safest way is to pass the money to the needy in person. There is already not much support for the helpless and needy, that's why charities in SG thrived and dignitaries supported the fund raisers. These charities plugged a hole in the system but then the question is how much of the hole did the charities manage to plug? Because these organizations were doing the dirty work the govt grew lax in supervising them.

For years before the revelation whispers had already begun on NKF about the decadence exhibited, the questionable parties NKF worked with and the fixed donations that increased too rapidly(Inflation? Who are we kidding?). In fact those raisers resembled MLM rallies so much it nauseated me. I believe a handful of perceptive people stopped their contributions on smelling something strange ongoing. Everyone was just hush hush because it still appeared to perform its role of plugging the hole in such a glorious manner.

If some of the public had already smelled something foul how did it slip past the spotless smarties?

 

[Frankiestine]

Charity should be the responsibility of the gov not the citizens...the gov is pushing away their responsibility of looking after the deprived citizens of this country...

:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:FUCK YOU PAP:oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[Ah Guan]

Singaporeans have been raised by this govt to think that they are failures if they are sick and disabled. The fact that they used to be productive and paid taxes for many years does not seem to count. A sad society.

Now it's much clearer you are not TOTALLY anti-left ... but more of an anti-Chinese-commie social-democrat wahahaa

 

[scroobal]

Now it's much clearer you are not TOTALLY anti-left ... but more of an anti-Chinese-commie social-democrat wahahaa

Good one bro.

 

[scroobal]

They have not realized all these years that in governing a country, the priority is the weakest citizen. Once they have resolved their basic problems and needs, then they need to move on to the next priority. Instead, they seem to have inverted their priorities..

Agree

The only way to create this realization is at the polls. But if most Singaporeans are happy with the current situation, then so be it..

Agree again

Having said that, we should still continue give to charitable causes, but only to those who are really needy, worthy of help and deserving of sympathy. And this should start with the rich corporate executives, businessmen, government officials, and descendents of wealth.

I have changed my approach in regard to this. I tell you a story about an old Indian chap staying at Cainhill. This guy was supposed to be a retired civil servant. For many years, he would call the authorities and report any beggars and destitute that he saw around orchard road vicinity.

He was relentless and would practically call on a daily basis until the authorities acted. I thought he hated the sight of them. To cut a long story short, because of him they had to expand Ministry of Social Welfare Mobile sqaud, they had to create more bed spaces at Woodlands home for the aged. He became a legend in both Social Welfare and Home Ministries. They were so afraid of him.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Woodlands Home for the Aged in mid 1980s and believe me its standards were high and the residents were a happy lot.

As long as this Govt knows that people are looking after them, the situation will deteriorate. The Indian chap must have passed away or is sick since mid 90s and things have badly deteriorated.

What we need to do is apply pressure to this govt to start looking after the needy. If we stop giving, I am sure they have to do something rather them shoot them and throw them in unmarked graves.

As long as there are nice people, these people will continue to live on streets. My approach is to call the authorities.

 

[scroobal]

I didn't say you weren't doing your part. Just giving you a nudge on that.

You are so free hanging out here at the forum, must be financially better off than me lo.

Not sure if you aware but JW5 has a heart of gold. I once made the mistake of thinking otherwise.

 

[jw5]

I didn't say you weren't doing your part. Just giving you a nudge on that.

You are so free hanging out here at the forum, must be financially better off than me lo.

I guess we must both be skivers right?

 

[jw5]

Red Cross had its share of embezzlement cases as well. Safest way is to pass the money to the needy in person. There is already not much support for the helpless and needy, that's why charities in SG thrived and dignitaries supported the fund raisers. These charities plugged a hole in the system but then the question is how much of the hole did the charities manage to plug? Because these organizations were doing the dirty work the govt grew lax in supervising them.

For years before the revelation whispers had already begun on NKF about the decadence exhibited, the questionable parties NKF worked with and the fixed donations that increased too rapidly(Inflation? Who are we kidding?). In fact those raisers resembled MLM rallies so much it nauseated me. I believe a handful of perceptive people stopped their contributions on smelling something strange ongoing. Everyone was just hush hush because it still appeared to perform its role of plugging the hole in such a glorious manner.

If some of the public had already smelled something foul how did it slip past the spotless smarties?

Perhaps because the "spotless smarties" are neither that "spotless" nor "smart"?