Monday, June 11, 2007
Book in loh
Today is my book-in day, book-in, book-in...
Today is my book-in day, book-in book-in day.
No more Dotaing, only IPPT
Navex and Platoon Battle Course in 733.. AH~!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
In-Camp Training from 11/06 to 15/06 =)
lowtide blogged @
12:58 am
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Continuing the "Social Worker" DebateWell after seeing
a passionate post from James and
a rather supportive follow-up from Tian Hao, I guess I cannot help but offer my two cents' worth regarding this issue.
(Please read up the two posts before reading mine)
Well, I agree there are indeed people who expect every single cent they donate going to help the victims directly, but this kind of mindset is slowly evolving into a pragmatic one.
Meaning, with the increasing coorporatisation of charity organisations, like the NKF, Ren Ci Hospital etc, people are increasingly aware that these large organisations need a huge amount of administrative fees as well, no matter in hiring staff, raising funds, paying auditors or in simple, mundane daily operations.
For those people who simply refuse to accept this fact, and insist that every single cent goes directly to the victims, we can actually ignore them. I'm not saying they are wrong, but if they won't budge to this new reality of charities, there is no point convincing them otherwise. Hence, ignoring them is the best measure. Therefore, I won't include them in the matter of my debate.
With regards to Tian Hao saying
"The crux of the problem should lie in whether more money are indeed raised through this method, even despite those soliciting fund at the frontline, receiving a cut of the donations. I would believe that this is the case, despite having no statistic to back up.",
I do definitely believe and agree that charities do actually have more money to spent (and help the victims) after employing these paid "social workers" to solicit funds for them, even without statistics to back me up.
However, the crux of the matter, at least to me, is not whether the charity organisations have more funds than WITHOUT employing these "social workers". Comparing the funds the charities have before and after hiring them completely misses the point of the perceived complaints made by the public.
So, even after recognising the fact that charities do need some money for administrative purposes, what are these people lamenting about?
To me, it is this point which everyone missed out where the crux of the matter lies - proportion.
What is the 'acceptable' proportion of donations used for 'other purposes' rather than helping the intended-recipents?
Indeed, there is no moral yardstick on this, as this 'acceptable' proportion differs from one individual to another.
However, in some cases, the proportion is so extreme that most members of public will find no hesistance in saying "that's too much!".
For example, in a report back then, when the 'old' NKF was audited upon, it was said that for every $1 they collected, only 10cents went to helping the patients directly.
Is this an extreme case? Is this too much? I think I know the answer in you.
How does this seemingly grossly mismanaged coorperation link to the subject I'm on today - the paid "social workers"?
Let me share with you my own experiences with them.
When I ORDed last March, I went everywhere looking for jobs.
Admist the MLMs and "business ventures" and "Timeshare" companies, I got into an interview with exactly the kind of company we're talking about now - a company hired by charities to raise funds for them.
A startling revelation was made to me, when the interviewer was answering our question on pay.
"You'll get 15% of what you raised during the day"
"You'll follow a team leader and go to different areas to get donations"
And I can't remember exactly, but a higher percentage was offered for weekends as well.
So what's my point?
Imagine. The LOWEST-RANKED worker get 15% of the donations they get. What does this imply?
What about the team leader? Does he get a further commission from it?
Further up the hierarchy? Does each strata of leader get an additional % of the earnings?
Manager? Director? God knows how many levels of leadership they have in their systems.
Common sense tells us that:
The Worker earns less than the Team Leader. The Team Leader earns less than the Manager. The Manager earns less than The Director.
Finally, what about the company itself?. The Director earns less than The Company.
I don't have the figures, but I'm sure when all these are added up, it adds up to a already hefty percentage of the donations raised.
When the already-diminished funds reach the charity itself, the charity will still have to spend some of this money on its own staff, i.e. administrative purposes.
The maths is simple.
Money that actually help the victims =
Total donations garnered -
[ Money going to the worker (already 15%) + team leader (higher) + blah blah blah (even higher) + manager (even even higher) + director (even even even higher) + (even even even even higher) company + administrative staff of the charity itself ]
So what's left?
"After all, if donaters are willing to part with their money, despite this knowledge, just let them be. If all the charities have to rely on workers who are driven by moral incentives, their survival will certainly be threatened and the losers in this whole episode will ultimately fall on those who need helps the most." -- Tian Hao
I agree. If donaters are still willing to donate despite this knowledge, these "social workers" have the legitimacy to earn indeed.
But wait.
Knowledge? What knowledge? Do we have them? Do these fund-raising companies dare to give us the breakdown of where these money go to?
If fund-raisers are so adamant that they are earning their cash legitimately, here's the challenge.
Share with us the breakdown of the donations' final destinations.Help us to decide whether to donate or not.
Help us to make an informed choice.
Let us make a choice based on information rather than based on some murky self-justifying logic.
You've got nothing to hide, have you? =)
lowtide blogged @
3:02 pm
the logo for the London 2012 olympics.
Erm. It's nice.
lowtide blogged @
1:55 pm
Monday, June 04, 2007
Kepada atau pada?
Sometimes our environment is full of those little things that we seem to see everyday.
We notice their presence, yet at the same time, do not really really register them in our minds unless people come to remind us about them.
Today on the bus to NUS (holidays still have to go back zzzzz), I bumped into one of those things I've mentioned.
One look and "yah!" comes to mind.
Sitting at the green seat (I love sitting there because of the ample leg space it offers) with nothing to do, I come to notice the sign.
This signboard is so common in our daily lives, and yet I've never really paid attention to it.
I think I've seen this since I was a kid. Did they ever update these signs?
Upon closer inspection, I think I learnt something today.
One: I've always learnt that 'duduk' is 'sit' in Malay, now I know, 'tempat duduk' is 'seat' in Malay. "Sitting Place" LOL ('tempat' is 'place' in Malay)
Two: For the few of my friends who know Malay, shouldn't the connector be 'kepada' instead of 'pada'? I thought 'pada' is for day, time, and date only?
(Ride bus also can think of malay. No wonder can get A+ =P)
lowtide blogged @
9:19 pm
