Footrace Against Time

Charity

Generally, charity is understood as providing finances, services, expertise, material or non-material assistance to any person, groups or communities in times of needs such as man-made disasters without the expectations of profit for the donors or funders. A very idealistic description!

 

Unanswered questions for the need for charity

Why in the first place is there a need to do charity? You might say, the answer is because we have a category of persons called the poor. If I were to ask you, how did this category of poor persons come about? What are the root causes? What can be done to make them rich, so that there are no poor persons leading to the non-necessity for doing charity? You would say that it is impossible as there will always be the rich and the poor?  But the next question is, how did this expectation or norm, that there will always be the rich and the poor come about? Is it man-made? If it is man-made, which persons would like it to remain? And who would benefit if this expectation and norm of the rich and the poor, will or should remain? How did the rich become rich and how did the poor become poor? Why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Does the rich need the poor or the poor needs the rich? As long as there are unanswered questions as fore-mentioned, the need for charity will continue exist. Charity is considered a notable tool in resolving certain symptoms of poverty. But the roots of poverty and sufferings not only remains but is multiplying in more numerous and complex manner.

 

One example of a common scenarios

An example is, a scenic and serene fishing community filled with laughter of children, dawn to dusk images of fishing activities, freshness of daily sea-catches and the tranquility of community life ' in one act of oil pollution is totally turned into a disaster zone. In place of the peace, serenity and tranquility, it is now filled with sadness, unemployment, hunger, fear and desperation.

In the immediacy of the disaster, politicians demonstrate their public relations, placing their faces as foreground to political publicity images that wants to convey their solidarity to the background of this suffering community. After giving a representative token sum from the state funds that might not even last for a month for each family's sustenance, they disappear with a notion that they done their public services.

NGO(s) and charitable groups move-in to provide their noble assistance to do their part, while back in their offices, their administrative staffs are busy raising funds to fill their bank accounts in the name of this current disaster. It is an open secret that on many occasions, multiple NGO(s) all claim to raise funds for a same disaster zone and all claim to give the funds to same persons or community. But it is not uncommon to hear that many persons from the said community or disaster zone complain about not having received any assistance or minimal assistance. So, if multiple NGO(s) are giving funds to the same group or persons, and yet there are those victims who don't receive help or receive minimal help, where is the money raised in the name of a said disaster going? But this is not the end of the sad story.

After all the propaganda, drama and acts of charity has been exhibited for media and informational purposes, the fact still remains that the roots to this man-made disaster is unresolved to be re-enacted in a different location at a different time. After the politicians and the NGO(s) have gone, it is not uncommon for the loan sharks and certain financial entities to move in for their marketing purposes.  This scenario is a vicious social cycle in which certain rich persons and entities indebts the poor during times of disasters. It is done on the rationale of giving-out cheap loans as aid in times of disasters even when sometimes the disasters are the by-products from the profit-making activities of the rich themselves. So the rich gains both ways while the poor loses both ways. This is another root cause of poverty and human suffering which is conveniently explained away or ignored.

In the event of a man-made disaster experienced by a community or group, there are several matters to be examined. Why should any community or group need to take even "cheap loans" to sustain themselves? Why can't the ruling governments, the courts and the persons in authority rightfully and legally compel the causers of the disasters not only to give immediate reliefs but to give long term compensations in terms of resources for the full-recovery of a said group or community to the state that they were once in before the disaster? So in terms of compensations, there should at least three types: 1) Immediate relief for reasonable comforts; 2) Long term compensation in finances, material and non-material resources until full recovery and 3) Damages for the sufferings that the group or community had to put-up with because of the disaster. It is sad to see that in many instances of man-made disasters, the victims not only received pittance and token sums, but were led into long terms debts in the attempt to recover from their suffering. Any compensations or a token sum that does not assist the victims of man-made disasters to regain their former status is compensation but pittance. And what victims need is not pittance but the resources to rightfully regain the former living status.

 

To give a fish or to teach to fish together

Sometimes, I wonder why many NGO(S) doesn't commit to a long term commitment to assist people in their recovery. It is like giving a fish for a day. A fish a day helps a person to live for a day. But when a fish a day is given with the addition of imparting the skills and resources to fish ' the victims can fish for life without the need for charity. What NGO(s) should re-examine is the way they do charity. Is charity being done to be on the popular bandwagon and to draw recognition to its organizational reputation? Or is Charity going to be done in such a way that victims and people who are suffering are assisted to stand on their feet for life. If millions of dollars in public and state funds are being raised in the name of charity and in the name of different disasters, the least NGO(s) can do is to rethink their perspective of doing charity. Maybe, NGO(s) should think small but do significant projects rather than thinking big but doing insignificant projects. What do I mean by this? NGO(s) should be more selective and focused on a particular area of assistance to victims but with a long term commitment. For example, instead just giving relief funds, NGO(s) could focus on rebuilding houses, creating jobs, retraining,education or even building and maintaining medical facilities which can be taken over by local governments after a certain period.

As for NGO(s) who are activists instead getting involved in relief work, they should complement those already involved in relief work by focusing their energies and resources on lobbying politically or socially to ensure the root causes of man-made disasters do not repeat. Here again NGO(s) should rethink or re-examine their motives and manner of working. Instead being individualistic and conscious of recognition, they should learn to voluntarily band into a team to be able to share, coordinate and focus on assisting victims in a same location in a variety of needs instead of all trying to do the same things. This calls for organizational and professional maturity which is lacking when it comes to teaming-up with their peers.

The need to do charity will exist as long as there is a significant disparity in the economic and political status of persons. But charity is not to be done out of pity but out of respect for the humanity and dignity, which rightfully belongs to all persons. It is be done out of a consciousness of sharing which should been in the first place. Charity is not something to make us noble but to declare that in humanity we all brothers and sisters. Charity is not giving but sharing. In line with this, I would re-describe charity. Charity is sharing of finances, services, expertise, material or non-material resources with any persons, groups or communities in times of need such as man-made disasters, without the expectations of recognition, profit or credit. This should be the idealistic goal in charity.

 

 

About the Author:
Th. Dip (MTBI); Th. B (BTS); MSCP (summa cum laude);

Winner of Rector's Award (AU)

Contact Email: nthesigan@hotmail.com