President's Star Charity Show

A few years back, there was a craze in Singapore: celebrities doing stunts not unlike that done by a circus, for the sake of charity. Death defying feats like driving around motorcycles inside a ball cage to scaling the heights of buildings all for the sake of charity. Inbetween those really lame stunts, they would show a few video clips of the plight of the people afflicted by their affliction.

All very carefully engineered propoganda to get people to join HwaCh- I mean, donate to charity. The sights and the sounds raise and drop the emotions within us all, and thus compelling us to dial the number. Ironically enough, the numbers are "lucky" for the Chinese, being like $8, $88, and $888.

I can't possibly imagine calling a number to donate $444 to a dying patient.

I digress, but I've always fantasized about diverting my calls to the most expensive hotline during these Star Charity Shows. Then tell all my friends to call me. Then proceed to lead a very lonely life. But I digress.

I do wonder though, is it hypothetically possible for funds to be raised through the normal means? Even if it does not, does it necessitate the prancing of famous artistes onstage? I don't think the fact that it has become more of a performance changes anything, that it mocks the patients in any way.

If anything at all, what we should be concerned about is the following:

"Poor donating more than rich

According to the SALT magazine (For Volunteers, Donors and Non-profits) of Jul-Aug 2007, “For Richer or For Poorer ?”, the lower income donated the most, compared to the highest income. Donors earning less than $ 1,000 a month, donated 0.65 per cent of annual income, those earning $ 8,000 - $ 8,999 and $ 9,000 - $ 9,999 donated only 0.04 and 0.13 per
cent respectively.

In average absolute dollar terms, the poorest donated $ 6.49 a month, and the rich donated only $ 3.60 ($ 8,000 - $ 8,999 earners).

If we do not acknowledge the problem of declining public donations, and focus on announcing ever record-breaking total donations in charity shows, how will Singaporeans be encouraged to donate more?"

Those who cannot afford to donate as much are the ones donating; are there any sympathisers for those less fortunate?

In the entire issue of donating, donor fatigue does exist. We give, we give and we give, but in the end we still have to give some more because the problem is not solved.

With the prices of everything still on the rise and the government paying itself more and more, it is of no surprise that people are getting tired. It is repetitive, and it is annoying.

We want something new and fresh to stimulate our interest, and that comes in a the form of creative and daring expression. We literally pay for entertainment, and hey why not, it's a good idea.

It was calculated that the sum of money spent by Europeans on cruises in a single year is sufficient to wipe poverty off this planet.

But of course, poverty and suffering are much harder to solve than that.