TR EMERITUS

Recently Ah Pek Goh asked us all to view problems in perspective, he went on to add, “It’s important for those who are facing problems of success – like inadequate car parks and housing at the top end – to think of those who are struggling to make a living everyday. There are many people who are not able to benefit from our overall success. So just remember that, as we also try to solve our own problems at the top end.”

You know what? I happen to be in complete agreement with Ah Pek Goh – that’s why I can’t for the life of me figure out why our government hasn’t come around to the idea of rolling out a comprehensive plan to address some of the most pressing problems facing the poor and disadvantaged in our society beyond trying to solve everything piece meal fashion on the word “charity.”  Don’t get me wrong I am all for the spirit of giving and caring for our fellow human beings and all that; the only problem with premising any idea based on the rickety idea of “charity,” is all too often it inspires the same set of problems it tries to resolve – for starters contrary to popular myth: charity as an social science is a pretty lousy way to organize, manage and converge all the different strands of shared purposes if the imperative is to effectively empower the poor and disadvantaged – wonder no more why despite nearly 60 years of unrelenting aid to Africa, endemic poverty still remains an intractable problem in the African continent.

The other thing I don’t like about charity especially when it is coupled to the corrosive idea of power and politics is it’s often used and abused as a card blanche by bovine politicians and bureaucrats to abdicate all responsibilities to help the most needy in our society. That also means whenever it suits the government of the day to play moral or sympathy card – they can easily do so on the cheap by tagging any of their proposals and initiatives with the sobriquet term of endearment called ‘charity’ – without ever having to make any long term commitments to the idea.

Finally, while it remains an incontrovertible fact that charity as a school of thought is noble, laudable and probably deserves a rightful place in every civilized society (I for one can’t think of a better way to sell really lousy artwork during charity events) – what must be appreciated is how woefully inadequate it is as a long term means to alleviate the suffering of those at the lower segment of our society – what is required here is a holistic and comprehensive plan that is able to incorporate elements of social welfarism– the case has never been more urgent before; as when society barrels further into the meat grinder of globalization. The emerging challenges thrown up by this frenetic pace of competition ranging from ceaseless competition to the hubris of income equality suggest if we are to stand any real chance of resolving these problems, then what is needed is something that cannot be held together by just the duct tape, superglue and rubber bands of the charity brigade – what is required here is a durable idea that goes beyond the simplistic notion of charity to embody a philosophy that is able to grow the whole idea of helping the poor on a systematic basis – to me it seems rather curious that while most people will never suggest leaving the budgetary demands of buying a submarine or provisioning the pay of ministers to the vagaries of charitable bodies; the same cannot be said when it comes to addressing the problems of the most needy in our society.

And this should prompt many of us to ask why? And what exactly are these needs? Why should these emerging problems even warrant a comprehensive and holistic blueprint that takes into account long term planning needs?

In Singapore today, the Gini coefficient – a measure of the gap separating the rich and poor – is comparable to that of China. When we consider that China is a developing country where huge gaps will inevitably open up between the wealthy few and the impoverished many, the fact that here in Singapore we have a similar inequality coefficient says much about not only how disinterested the government of the day has been about considering welfare assistance and services for the poor; this attitude of terminal ambivalence also illustrates the extent of the neglect this subject has been stifled – as it still continues to harbor the belief that the disparities brought forth by the forces of globalization can be righted with charity alone.

Whether this can be accomplished and at what cost – I shall leave to the judgment of the perceptive reader – but I am not confident. As the problem may be so intractable that to even suggest for one moment it can be solved by charity alone – makes as much sense as the proverbial drunk who continues to search for his lost keys under the lamppost, even though that’s not where he might have dropped them – for the simple reason the light shines there.

At this juncture it may be worthwhile to press the pause button and ask ourselves – how did we get ourselves into this mess in the first place? Where it may not be altogether wrong to say we have achieved success but at a such an exorbitantly high social cost that it even provokes many of us to ask whether it was worthwhile pursuing such toxic goal in the first place? And why is it now so difficult for us to get a handle on this new emerging problem of managing those who have been displaced by the frenetic pace of life in Singapore?

As long as we continue to promote the myopic culture where we are inclined to see everything only on the narrowest terms of growth, yield and productivity that can be measured by GDP and GNP – and not what is fundamentally right and wrong (as it should be) – then all this talk about finding a lasting means of emancipation beyond the word charity will always remain elusive – as to successfully migrate beyond the word charity to something that is bigger and better – what is required is nothing less than a paradigm shift in not only the way we have traditionally defined organizational and personal success – it may even require policymakers to jettison the propensity to avoid moral considerations whenever they make decisions concerning people – my fear is unless we begin to retrace earnestly where we have gone wrong by going back to the start point and asking ourselves basic questions like: what kind of society do we want to build. And what is the cost that we are prepared to pay to get a comprehensive and holistic plan to help people deal better with the ravages brought forth by the forces of globalization – then what is likely to happen is nothing – or worse continue to invent a multitude of reasons to believe that we could just as well continue as if it’s business as usual and use charity to get us to where we want to go – and the consequence of that folly will be more and quite possibly the worse mistake we have ever made.

Contributed by the Brotherhood Press

Editor’s note: This Essay has been written by the Brotherhood Press and was recently published in Ekunaba, PBK and SLF 1 & 17

14 Responses to “Why I would rather prefer a Politician to blow a Vuvuzela than to use the word Charity!”