A recent story in Business Weekly about the "Peach Grandma" -- a poor peach farmer burdened with raising seven grandchildren -- prompted many people to donate to an account set up by the newspaper, thinking that their money would go to the woman they had read about.
But a controversy erupted over the revelation that much of the money went to other social causes, not to the woman.
This sparked discussion in newspapers about social problems that lead to poverty. There was also discussion about the myths surrounding charity.
But all the discussions overlooked one important point regarding the monitoring and use of donations: More education is needed to inform the public about social issues, particularly concerning charitable organizations.
The money collected following the peach farmer story, or that raised following an earlier report about the Chang brothers, who suffered from adrenoleukodystrophy, highlighted our society's capacity for compassion.
Yet the controversy that ensued exposed a serious problem with the supervision of donations, which risks causing the public to lose faith in charitable drives and nonprofit organizations.
The Chang family, living in Kaohsiung, received tens of millions of NT dollars within a few days. But other Taiwanese patients with the same genetic disorder -- widely publicized in the movie Lorenzo's Oil -- did not benefit, simply because they had not received media publicity.
Next, as was mentioned in some editorials, the case of the peach farmer was not unusual. A grandmother raising her grandchildren unaided is not uncommon among financially disadvantaged households.
If the donations are given to just one needy person, we are not combating the root of the problem.
Raising funds is a difficult task. Employing the money in such a way as to most effectively benefit a large number of needy households is even harder. Collecting financial resources is only the beginning of a charity's work.
Planning and executing projects are even more important for resolving social problems.
Unfortunately, too many Taiwanese foundations lack professional social workers and experience working directly with communities. The few experienced administrators at those foundations are struggling to plan and execute charitable programs.
Overseas, large nonprofits such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation raise hundreds of millions of US dollars every year. To use the money effectively, they have elaborate management systems with experienced personnel planning and orchestrating long-term projects.
They act as grant givers themselves, accepting applications from smaller social groups to fund their projects. They fund everything from cultural programs to disaster relief to scholarships, and their subsidies are generous enough for a youth shelter to operate for a year.
This is similar to the method used by the United Way of Taiwan. It provides assistance to smaller organizations that are incapable of raising sufficient funds.
Research by the famous Indian Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen showed that the continuing hunger problem in India was not a result of insufficient food.
Instead, the problems are rooted in inefficient food distribution to victims of famine, as well as social problems. The delivery and implementation of disaster relief were also problematic, Sen found. Thus, India's hunger is not simply an issue of resources.
Today, Taiwan is facing similar difficulties. A charitable civil society and sense of social responsibility on the part of businesses has begun to blossom, but a lack of experience and understanding of how to make donations work must be addressed.
Nonprofits must make efficiency, credibility, accountability and integrity their top priorities. The public must also learn to take note of whether nonprofits are officially registered and pay more attention to their methods and goals. Social welfare groups must also publish annual reports detailing how donations were used.
Only when social welfare groups exercise self-discipline and are properly monitored can civil society grow strong.
Karleen Chiu is an assistant professor at the Department of Social Welfare at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS