Why are the rich more selfish?

I have always had the nagging feeling that rich people are less generous when it comes to charity giving. Well, it seems that I am right after all, based on the results of NVPC (National Volunteer and Philanthropic Centre) 2006 survey on philanthropic giving in Singapore. The results were published in The Straits Times article ‘In aid of the poorer or richer?’ by Willie Cheng (Sept 04, 2007). The survey results showed that lower-income earners donated a larger proportion of their income compared to higher-income earners. For example, those earning less than $1000 monthly donated 0.65% of their annual income while those earning in the range of $9000-$9,999 donated only 0.12% of their annual income. But it is not only the rich in Singapore who give less proportionately compared to the less well-off. In Britain, a study by Banks and Tanner showed that the richest 20% of households donated less than 1% of their expenditure while the poorest 10% donated 3%.

It seems counter-intuitive that the rich should give less compared to those who are poorer. Having their basic needs met and left with so much surplus wealth, the rich would feel much less pinch to donate some of their money compared to those who are struggling to make ends meet. Yet the reality is stranger than what our logic dictates.

So what might explain the tighter string-purses of the wealthy when it comes to charity giving? Perhaps the more affluent one is the more detached from the other segments of society, such as the needy and less fortunate, one becomes. As one grows richer, one’s circle of friends and acquaintances evolves as the rich tend to clique among themselves. This might result in the inability of the rich to fully comprehend the difficulties faced by the needy and less fortunate or become ignorant of the extent of the problem. This is especially true for those who grew up with silver teaspoons in their mouths. One might think that those among the rich who came from poor backgrounds would be more inclined to donate to charity. This may not always be true. Even those who saw their fate turn from rags-to-riches might forget what it meant to be poor with the passage of time or due to other social factors like peer pressure, and as a result be less generous than expected.

The parsimony of the rich toward philanthropic causes may also be a reflection of the apathy of the rich towards the less fortunate. The rich may feel that the suffering of the less fortunate is in no way attributable to their actions and thus should not be compelled to help them. They may argue that the poor and less fortunate only have themselves to blame or it is just their fate that they are mired in their unfortunate situations. However, such an argument is devoid of morality. As part of the larger society, the rich has an obligation to contribute back to it and help the other segments of society that require assistance. I am not suggesting that the rich has to support the needy and less fortunate financially all the way for doing so would be counter-productive. Donations from the rich should be used to fund education or programmes that will equip the needy and less fortunate with skills to enable them to break out of the cycle of poverty. As the saying goes “Give a man a fish and he will only live for one day, but teach him how to fish and he will live for a lifetime.”

It is inconceivable that the rich might be willing to splurge thousands or even millions on Lamborghinis, Rolexes and personal yachts or even planes but donate so little of their wealth to charity. Recently, there was a newspaper report of a late British tycoon who left one million for the upkeep of her dog. The rich has definitely got their priorities wrong. Such money could have been put to better use if donated to charities. I wonder what is the purpose of amassing so much wealth when one can only live finitely and that material possessions are merely transient. Is it because one becomes blinded by wealth the richer one gets so that they become only concerned with amassing ever-increasing amounts of wealth? Or is it the lack of moral guiding principles among rich people that has led to this perceived apathy towards the needy and less fortunate?

Whatever the reasons may be for the selfishness of the rich towards philanthropy, we should take heart in the fact that there are many out there who give whatever little they have to help the needy and less fortunate. It is this kind of spirit of giving and selflessness that should be encouraged.

Hostages - The Currency of Terrorists?

There has been much controversy over the recent South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan which began on 19th July and I would like to add my two-cent worth. The Saemmul Presbyterian Church from which the 23 South Korean hostages hail claimed that they were only doing aid work such as teaching English and hospital work in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, their aid work was only a veneer for their main motive to proselytize their religion to Muslims in Afghanistan. One must question if such an aim was sensitive to the Muslim community there, or to those of other religions in other parts of the world. The South Korean missionaries only intended to stay for a short-term and this places doubt on the sustainability of their aid work. Their prudence in traveling to such a troubled region despite a travel ban to Afghanistan by the South Korean government and without necessary protection is also questionable. Thus, it is only natural to expect ambivalent feelings of sympathy for the two hostages who were killed and relief for those who were freed and flaming criticisms for the 23 missionaries by South Koreans and the world at large.

While the hostage crisis has ended, the political crisis is not over yet. The Taleban claimed that the South Korean government has given them US$20 million and promised to withdraw South Korean troops in Afghanistan by the end of the year. The Taleban also went as far to claim that they would use the money received to buy more weapons and conduct more suicide bombings and other terrorist activities. In their over-zealous evangelistic zeal to ‘spread the word of God’, these missionaries have not only put their lives in danger, but also the lives of others, as well as the political situation in Afghanistan. The readiness of the South Korean government to give in to the Taleban’s demand have merely emboldened them and boosted the morale of terrorists all over the world. It seems that hostages are the new currency for terrorists these days. Well, the South Korean hostage crisis was not the first of its kind and I do not expect it to be the last either. There have been hostages from other countries such as Germany and Italy taken by the Taleban in the past too. The South Korean government has promised to withdraw all missionaries in Afghanistan but this is not enough. There are still many South Korean missionaries in other dangerous regions who are at risk of being kidnapped by terrorists. Other countries should also ban missionaries from visiting troubled regions and withdraw those already there. I wonder when these foolhardy people who take unnecessary risk will stop visiting such troubled regions and leave the aid and relief work to the experts and correct agencies. It would indeed be foolish for these missionaries to think that just because they are doing good deeds or proselytizing, they would be protected by God, and when they face trouble God would save them. One must not be blinded by the desire to spread his or her religion or do good deeds without careful consideration of the risks involved, otherwise one may end up doing more harm than good.

I wonder what action the Singapore government would take and what the public reaction would be if any Singaporean was so unfortunate to be taken hostage by terrorists in another country. If he or she is personnel of the SAF and doing peacekeeping work in the country then I believe the public’s response would be of sympathy for they would understand the purpose of his or her presence in the country. But would the public be as sympathetic if he or she was proselytizing in that country despite a travel ban by the Singapore government?