论文部分内容阅读
It has been reported that a charity organization named Shilehui in Jinhua, east China’s Zhejiang Province, permits its social workers to pocket 15 percent from each charity donation they collect. Twelve social workers of the Web-based charity collected 23.64 million yuan ($3.8 million) in charity funds within four years.
Heated debate ensued on whether charity organizations should give their volunteers kickbacks. Some support the idea, saying that it is reasonable that charity volunteers get some rewards for their work, while many have accused the charity platform of cheating its donors despite a pledge from the organization to use all funds to help those in need. The following are excerpts of some opinions.
Supporters
She Zongming (Workers’ Daily): Although charity is not a business, it also needs financial support. We can’t expect social workers to pay all the bills. Therefore, it’s an international practice to offer these workers a certain amount of commission.
Material rewards will stimulate social workers’ enthusiasm for the work. The main point is that charity organizations should not become profit-oriented organizations. In May 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs made it clear that charity funds are allowed to keep a certain proportion of donation for daily expenses, but the proportion should be kept below 10 percent of the organization’s annual expenses on charity programs. Thus, the proportion of 15 percent exceeds the limit. Allured by high kickbacks, charity workers could abuse their work as a channel for making big money.
Zhang Guifeng (Procuratorial Daily): Although from a moral perspective, “unpaid”volunteers are believed to be loftier than“paid” charity workers, we should admit that charity will not necessarily exclude “paid work.” In many cases, maintaining a smooth and sustainable operation of certain charity programs requires that workers are paid. After all, collecting donations and subsequently distributing them is a long process. The operation costs money and social workers also need to pay for their own daily expenses. Therefore, to require charity workers to totally neglect personal gains is unrealistic and also unnecessary. It will sometimes hurt the operation of charities.
Long Minfei (Xinhua Daily Telegraph): The typical charity model was typically one operated by volunteers who work for free, but Leshihui changed that traditional structure. People may disagree as to the legitimacy of this model, but it would be improper to rashly forbid it. It is better to give this model enough time, to see if it will ultimately prevail.
Shilehui’s sustainable development is made possible by kickbacks from charity funds. In this way, the organization encourages its workers to be more proactive by offering compensation for the time and energy they have contributed, as opposed to the traditional mode. However, unpaid volunteers take on sacrifices by engaging in such charity work. Traditionally, charity workers are required to provide services without expecting to be paid for their contributions. It seems unsustainable for the majority of charity workers.
It is quite reasonable for charity organizations to take part of the donated funds for their daily operating expenses. Paid charity workers suit current social conditions and can also make charity work more professional.
Opponents
Xue jianguo (Qianjiang Evening News): In response to public accusations of “cheating for donations,” Shilehui said that its model will effectively encourage workers to bring in more charitable funds. Doing good deeds is supposed to be driven by pure altruism rather than the pursuit of personal gain. Offering charity workers kickbacks goes against the original purpose of charity. Everybody can be a charitable giver, both rich and poor alike. Those with money can offer their money, and those without it can offer services. In charity, money is not everything. Millionaires can contribute to building schools and hospitals, while ordinary people can help the elderly in seniors’ homes. There is no distinct line between people’s good deeds.
Thus, those who do good deeds must first be selfless. After deciding to do something for charity, one must prepare to contribute a certain amount of energy or money. If charity work is done as a paid job, then it’s not charity in the real sense. Contributing more money than one can afford and then asking for charitable support is not real charity either.
According to Shilehui, their past volunteers needed to pay for their own travel costs when seeking donations, and many volunteers had to leave the organization due to financial strain. Today, however, the more funds they have collected, the more kickbacks they will get. Charity has become much more attractive to volunteers. The organization might find its operation to be much easier, but here charity and public welfare is transformed into a “profitable profession.”
Some people argue that Shilehui is training professional fundraisers. They turn to the so-called “international practice.” However, what people do in other countries is not necessarily appropriate for China as well.
We know that running a charity requires money. The cost should not be offered by donors, however, but rather by the government or other charity organizations. The international model does not fit China’s social system or its traditional culture, and thus will not be well received by the public. After all, charity is a sacred cause that demands its practitioners to be ready to make sacrifices and contributions without complaint.
Fang Qingjiang (Wuhan Evening News): The Internet is the major platform by which Shilehui carries out its charity activities. It works like an agent, connecting donors with donation recipients. This process costs money. In the first three months of this year, this job was done by volunteers, who were responsible for all of the cost during this process.
Asking charity workers to bear the operation cost seems to be against the moral code of charity. Ultimately, it may lead to the collapse of this charity organization. However, transferring the cost to donors is also a challenge to the purity of charity. Social workers are now closely tied to the sum of funds they have collected. The 15 percent kickback is a bit too high. In a situation where the more you collect, the higher your income will be, charity becomes just another tool to make money.
The problem is not whether social workers should be paid or not, but how they should be paid. Relying on the donated funds is clearly improper. When an agency decides to get involved with charity, it first must be financially capable of supporting itself and also the smooth operation of charity activities. Only when the charity organization is financially able to support itself can we expect donors’ interests to be well protected.
In the long run, charity organizations are supposed to set up a transparent fund collection mechanism. Apart from donations, they can try to make money through sales and even starting businesses. Meanwhile, it’s necessary to improve relevant laws, making explicit regulations for the founding and operation of charity organizations. Also, it’s necessary for the government to provide favorable policies to these organizations to help them live easier lives so that they can do more for the needy.
Heated debate ensued on whether charity organizations should give their volunteers kickbacks. Some support the idea, saying that it is reasonable that charity volunteers get some rewards for their work, while many have accused the charity platform of cheating its donors despite a pledge from the organization to use all funds to help those in need. The following are excerpts of some opinions.
Supporters
She Zongming (Workers’ Daily): Although charity is not a business, it also needs financial support. We can’t expect social workers to pay all the bills. Therefore, it’s an international practice to offer these workers a certain amount of commission.
Material rewards will stimulate social workers’ enthusiasm for the work. The main point is that charity organizations should not become profit-oriented organizations. In May 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs made it clear that charity funds are allowed to keep a certain proportion of donation for daily expenses, but the proportion should be kept below 10 percent of the organization’s annual expenses on charity programs. Thus, the proportion of 15 percent exceeds the limit. Allured by high kickbacks, charity workers could abuse their work as a channel for making big money.
Zhang Guifeng (Procuratorial Daily): Although from a moral perspective, “unpaid”volunteers are believed to be loftier than“paid” charity workers, we should admit that charity will not necessarily exclude “paid work.” In many cases, maintaining a smooth and sustainable operation of certain charity programs requires that workers are paid. After all, collecting donations and subsequently distributing them is a long process. The operation costs money and social workers also need to pay for their own daily expenses. Therefore, to require charity workers to totally neglect personal gains is unrealistic and also unnecessary. It will sometimes hurt the operation of charities.
Long Minfei (Xinhua Daily Telegraph): The typical charity model was typically one operated by volunteers who work for free, but Leshihui changed that traditional structure. People may disagree as to the legitimacy of this model, but it would be improper to rashly forbid it. It is better to give this model enough time, to see if it will ultimately prevail.
Shilehui’s sustainable development is made possible by kickbacks from charity funds. In this way, the organization encourages its workers to be more proactive by offering compensation for the time and energy they have contributed, as opposed to the traditional mode. However, unpaid volunteers take on sacrifices by engaging in such charity work. Traditionally, charity workers are required to provide services without expecting to be paid for their contributions. It seems unsustainable for the majority of charity workers.
It is quite reasonable for charity organizations to take part of the donated funds for their daily operating expenses. Paid charity workers suit current social conditions and can also make charity work more professional.
Opponents
Xue jianguo (Qianjiang Evening News): In response to public accusations of “cheating for donations,” Shilehui said that its model will effectively encourage workers to bring in more charitable funds. Doing good deeds is supposed to be driven by pure altruism rather than the pursuit of personal gain. Offering charity workers kickbacks goes against the original purpose of charity. Everybody can be a charitable giver, both rich and poor alike. Those with money can offer their money, and those without it can offer services. In charity, money is not everything. Millionaires can contribute to building schools and hospitals, while ordinary people can help the elderly in seniors’ homes. There is no distinct line between people’s good deeds.
Thus, those who do good deeds must first be selfless. After deciding to do something for charity, one must prepare to contribute a certain amount of energy or money. If charity work is done as a paid job, then it’s not charity in the real sense. Contributing more money than one can afford and then asking for charitable support is not real charity either.
According to Shilehui, their past volunteers needed to pay for their own travel costs when seeking donations, and many volunteers had to leave the organization due to financial strain. Today, however, the more funds they have collected, the more kickbacks they will get. Charity has become much more attractive to volunteers. The organization might find its operation to be much easier, but here charity and public welfare is transformed into a “profitable profession.”
Some people argue that Shilehui is training professional fundraisers. They turn to the so-called “international practice.” However, what people do in other countries is not necessarily appropriate for China as well.
We know that running a charity requires money. The cost should not be offered by donors, however, but rather by the government or other charity organizations. The international model does not fit China’s social system or its traditional culture, and thus will not be well received by the public. After all, charity is a sacred cause that demands its practitioners to be ready to make sacrifices and contributions without complaint.
Fang Qingjiang (Wuhan Evening News): The Internet is the major platform by which Shilehui carries out its charity activities. It works like an agent, connecting donors with donation recipients. This process costs money. In the first three months of this year, this job was done by volunteers, who were responsible for all of the cost during this process.
Asking charity workers to bear the operation cost seems to be against the moral code of charity. Ultimately, it may lead to the collapse of this charity organization. However, transferring the cost to donors is also a challenge to the purity of charity. Social workers are now closely tied to the sum of funds they have collected. The 15 percent kickback is a bit too high. In a situation where the more you collect, the higher your income will be, charity becomes just another tool to make money.
The problem is not whether social workers should be paid or not, but how they should be paid. Relying on the donated funds is clearly improper. When an agency decides to get involved with charity, it first must be financially capable of supporting itself and also the smooth operation of charity activities. Only when the charity organization is financially able to support itself can we expect donors’ interests to be well protected.
In the long run, charity organizations are supposed to set up a transparent fund collection mechanism. Apart from donations, they can try to make money through sales and even starting businesses. Meanwhile, it’s necessary to improve relevant laws, making explicit regulations for the founding and operation of charity organizations. Also, it’s necessary for the government to provide favorable policies to these organizations to help them live easier lives so that they can do more for the needy.