Sunday April 17, 2011
After the conclusion of the election in the State of Sarawak where the spectre of inter-racial and inter-religious conflicts rear their ugly heads, I am reminded of the following article published over a year ago by Tuanku Sultanah Raja Zarith Sofia binti Sultan Idris Shah issuing an appeal for peace.
Grace & Peace
Yap Kim Hao
Sunday January 10, 2010
May peace be upon us
Mind Matters
By RAJA ZARITH IDRIS
Compared to the people of war-torn countries, we have a lot to be thankful for. But perhaps it is because we are at peace that we bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
AND so a new year begins, carrying with it last year’s “1Malaysia” theme for the country.
It perhaps signifies a realisation that we have many problems to overcome together as a nation. The encouragement for unity suggests that we all, knowingly or otherwise, realise that something is seriously wrong: we have become unhealthily obsessed with petty issues regarding race and religion.
We’ve all heard whispered comments about parents telling their children not to befriend their classmates who are not of the same race or religion. These whispers have become part of conversations, which leave us frustrated.
We are now facing a wall – quite a solid one at that – made up of bigoted remarks which stem from ignorance, intolerance, suspicion, a shunning of our own neighbours, and, yes, even hatred.
Last year, Muslims brought with them the severed head of a cow to a mosque to show their anger over the building of a Hindu temple.
During the second week of this new year, incendiary devices were thrown into churches – the Metro Tabernacle Church in Kuala Lumpur, the Assumption Church, the Life Chapel Church and The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, all in Petaling Jaya.
And yet, it is written in the Holy Quran: “And argue not with the People of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians), unless it be in a way that is better (with good words and in a good manner... except with such of them as do wrong.” — Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 46.
In his own lifetime, the Holy Prophet Muhammad S.A.W (May Peace Be Upon Him) dealt fairly with the Christians.
The Prophet ordered two of his followers – Abu Musa Al-Ash’aree and Mu’aadh ibn Jabal – to go to Najran (part of present-day Yemen) to speak to the Christians.
This is recorded in the Hadiths (Islamic Traditions) according to both Al-Imam Muslim and Al-Imam Al-Bukhari: “... he said to them: ‘Facilitate things for the people (treat the people in the most agreeable way), and do not make things difficult for them, and give them glad tidings, and let them not have aversion (i.e. to make the people hate good deeds) and you should both work in cooperation and mutual understanding, obey each other’...” —Kindness & Gentleness by Doctor Fadl Al-Ilaahi, translated by Tarik Preston.
The treaty made then has become the basis of Islamic relations with other religions: “Najran and their followers have the protection of God and the protection of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God, for themselves, their community, their land and their goods, both those who are absent and those who are present, and for their churches and their services (no bishop will be moved from his episcopate, and no monk from his monastery, and no church warden from his wardenship) and for all, great or little, that is under their hands...” — Demystifying Islam: Your Guide to The Most Misunderstood Religion of the 21st Century by Dr Ali Shehata.
After the Prophet’s death, the second Caliph, Saidina Omar bin Khattab, signed a peace treaty with the Christians in Jerusalem: “In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, This is the protection which the servant of God, ‘Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya (Jerusalem). The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their co-religionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion ... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya (the tax for their defence) imposed on them.” — www.
gawaher.com
It is a sad irony that at an age when there is so much information available to us via telecommunication and the Internet, we have become even more paranoid than ever.
We all call Malaysia home, do we not?
As fellow citizens, we can choose to see what we have in common or we can just look at the differences.
We can choose to remain ignorant or we can ask for guidance from our religious leaders and officials.
A year ago, we saw television footage and news items about the war in Gaza. Every day, our newspapers showed us images of the wounded and the dead. We saw homes and hospitals bombed into broken skeletons of bricks and metal.
Compared to the people of Gaza, we have a lot to be thankful for. We do not have an armed enemy attacking us. Our country is not at war. There are no missiles, no bombs, no air raids.
It is perhaps because we are at peace that we have come to bicker with each other, seeing shadows where there are none.
Most families have enough to eat decent meals. We have no shortage of petrol. Our homes remain intact. Because we do not have a common enemy, we have, it seems, the time and energy to destroy places of worship.
Let us remind ourselves that the Muslim greeting or salam is “May Peace Be Upon You”.
> The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, UKM, Chairperson of the Community Services Committee of the Malaysian Red Crescent Society, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oxford.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Gayle Goh's Vision
My Vision For Singapore, by Gayle Goh
Posted on January 3, 2011 by visa
People have asked me what my vision of Singapore is. But I think I first have to lay out my vision of its people – people who are no longer stranded in the boxes of an impersonal state’s construction, but who are willing to venture out of those confines to lay down the grounds for their own lives and prosperity. People who have ownership of the terms of their citizenship, instead of having those terms dictated to them without so much as a by-your-leave. People who are mature enough to be trusted, who are dignified instead of patronized, who are able to use their ’1st World’ educations not just for material benefit but for the purposes of self-determination, which is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
I envision a people who govern themselves through the constructs of their shaping; independent yet responsible media, judiciary, legislative and executive arms of the state, ballot box, labour unions. Where they are the foremost judge and jury, where the government must be held accountable to them, and prove themselves capable to be their representatives, instead of the other way around. People who are proud to call themselves Singaporeans, engaged and aware of their nation and their countrymen.
Singapore, then, is a nation I have always envisaged as a child who went to sleep and, without knowing it, grew to be a man. In his slumber he aged, matured, became strong-limbed and nimble, powerful and beautiful, and yet remained imprisoned in his lethargy. Sedated by peace and numbed by comfort, he was content to lie mute, deaf, non-assertive. But of late his sleep is restless, disturbed by ugly images. His once-blissful dreams have been tinged with unease. Something has gone wrong. Something is not right. And he stirs – a little finger trembles here, a heartbeat quickens there – and soon he will awaken. His eyes will open and he will discover that he has autonomy over his self, his person, that he has power invested in those hands.
And he must do this before a child’s cradle turns into a man’s grave.
Only Singaporeans can awaken their nation. Only they can unpack the boxes, sort out the mess, throw away the rotten and tidy the dishevelled. Only they have the ability and the sheer will to effect change. Our country is a child no longer. It is a fledgling nation no longer. It has an identity, a consciousness, a name, a face. It must no longer be treated as an infant, unable to discern nor fend for itself. Else, if we turn away, if we stir but do not wake, then we run the risk of losing our chance to see the world – to see ourselves – as who wecan be, not who they tell us we must be.
Labels, labels, boxes and labels. Stayers, quitters, 3rd world, 1st world, old, young, skilled, unskilled, English-educated radicals, Chinese chauvinists, neighbourhood, elite, moderates, dissidents, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others. I see Singaporeans. And until we see ourselves, how do we staunch the rotting, how do we cease the diaspora, the dispersion of people emigrating from our homeland, disillusioned, discontent, now apathetic?
Until we awaken, how do we learn how to live?
This entry was posted in Singapore, Social Issues. Bookmark the permalink.
← The Challenge.
is there anything at all about yourself that pisses you off? {:
Posted on January 3, 2011 by visa
People have asked me what my vision of Singapore is. But I think I first have to lay out my vision of its people – people who are no longer stranded in the boxes of an impersonal state’s construction, but who are willing to venture out of those confines to lay down the grounds for their own lives and prosperity. People who have ownership of the terms of their citizenship, instead of having those terms dictated to them without so much as a by-your-leave. People who are mature enough to be trusted, who are dignified instead of patronized, who are able to use their ’1st World’ educations not just for material benefit but for the purposes of self-determination, which is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
I envision a people who govern themselves through the constructs of their shaping; independent yet responsible media, judiciary, legislative and executive arms of the state, ballot box, labour unions. Where they are the foremost judge and jury, where the government must be held accountable to them, and prove themselves capable to be their representatives, instead of the other way around. People who are proud to call themselves Singaporeans, engaged and aware of their nation and their countrymen.
Singapore, then, is a nation I have always envisaged as a child who went to sleep and, without knowing it, grew to be a man. In his slumber he aged, matured, became strong-limbed and nimble, powerful and beautiful, and yet remained imprisoned in his lethargy. Sedated by peace and numbed by comfort, he was content to lie mute, deaf, non-assertive. But of late his sleep is restless, disturbed by ugly images. His once-blissful dreams have been tinged with unease. Something has gone wrong. Something is not right. And he stirs – a little finger trembles here, a heartbeat quickens there – and soon he will awaken. His eyes will open and he will discover that he has autonomy over his self, his person, that he has power invested in those hands.
And he must do this before a child’s cradle turns into a man’s grave.
Only Singaporeans can awaken their nation. Only they can unpack the boxes, sort out the mess, throw away the rotten and tidy the dishevelled. Only they have the ability and the sheer will to effect change. Our country is a child no longer. It is a fledgling nation no longer. It has an identity, a consciousness, a name, a face. It must no longer be treated as an infant, unable to discern nor fend for itself. Else, if we turn away, if we stir but do not wake, then we run the risk of losing our chance to see the world – to see ourselves – as who wecan be, not who they tell us we must be.
Labels, labels, boxes and labels. Stayers, quitters, 3rd world, 1st world, old, young, skilled, unskilled, English-educated radicals, Chinese chauvinists, neighbourhood, elite, moderates, dissidents, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others. I see Singaporeans. And until we see ourselves, how do we staunch the rotting, how do we cease the diaspora, the dispersion of people emigrating from our homeland, disillusioned, discontent, now apathetic?
Until we awaken, how do we learn how to live?
This entry was posted in Singapore, Social Issues. Bookmark the permalink.
← The Challenge.
is there anything at all about yourself that pisses you off? {:
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Life is What You Make It
Review of Peter Buffet, Life is What You Make It, New York: Harmony Books, 2010.
When I attended the Credit Suisse Philanthropists Forum 2011 in Raffles Hotel, Singapore I received an autographed copy of a recent New York Times Bestseller book which was given to each of the 150 participants - “Life is What You Make It: Find Your Own Path to Fulfillment” by Peter Buffett. I admit that I did not know anything about the author before and he is indeed the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Bill and Melinda Gates commented that the book captures Peter’s spirit, passion and values beautifully in reflecting on life’s purpose and opportunity.
What a privilege it was to hear him speak at one of the sessions of the Forum which was moderated by Sir John Major, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. How enlightening it is to read his book about his own examination of the way he manages his life – his passion, his wealth, and his commitment to philanthropy. He revealed the contours of his life’s journey given the fortunate and privileged circumstances that surrounded him and sought to motivate others in their own special situations.
It is a book about attitudes, convictions and values that shape every person’s life. His credentials is simply his own life that has forced him “to think long and hard about these matters.”
Peter recalls the opinion of his father about inherited wealth; “that the silver spoon in the mouth too often becomes the silver dagger in the back – an ill-considered gift that saps ambition and drains motivation, that deprives a young person of the great adventure of finding his or her own way.” Another principle that he got from his father is that parents if they have the means should give their children “enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing.”
His own adventure as a teenager was a vague and confused one even uncertain about finishing high school. His parents approach was that the children could be whatever they wanted to be and they should follow their hearts or bliss wherever they led them.
When he was growing up his parents were not wealthy yet but had some influence to get him admitted to Stanford University although he realised that he did not deserve to be there because of his own academic record and interest. He was naturally curious and benefitted from the broad liberal education without a precise career goal.
At the age of nineteen he received his first family inheritance of about $90,000 in the form of stocks and was told that he should not expect more at that time. This became a challenge for him to use what was given to him. He could have wasted it by spending on luxuries and pamper himself. If he had done nothing and left it alone the stock would eventually fetch seventy-two million dollars. But he chose in what he said to spend the money to buy time.
The time is related to his decision to pursue a career in music. It is to have time and technologies to develop his passion for music. He moved from Omaha to San Francisco. He lived frugally and turned his small apartment to a recording studio and offered his services. He began to write music himself and looking for that distinctive “sound” which identifies his creative work.
He realised the true value of money. Money is replaceable. But what you have done with money in terms of experience, value, fulfillment are important. Peter was able to make his life and find his vocation. He became a composer of music for commercials and for the movies. His pinnacle of success was the “Firedance” scene in the Oscar-winning film, “Dances with Wolves.” He received also the Emmy Award as a composer.
The message that he wants to communicate is that “money should be seen as a spin-off of success, a side effect, and not the measure of success itself.”
He observed his parents who have grown very wealthy. His mother was still the “warm and giving person.” His father still worked “wearing his trance-like concentration along with his khaki pants and cardigans.” Money did not change them for making money was not the prime objective. He wrote: “My father worked extremely hard because he loved what he did, because it challenged and excited him. Money came eventually, but the passion and the curiosity were there from the start. Money followed: it never led.”
On Christmas 1999 Warren Buffett endowed a charitable foundation for each of his three children. Each was given ten million dollars and Peter and his wife Jennifer received further contributions from his parents and by 2004 the foundation they established grew to more than one hundred million dollars. In 2006 Warren Buffet deposited $37 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He added one billion dollars to each of his children’s foundation. While protecting his career as a musician Peter became more involved in philanthropy.
Peter formulated some guiding principles in managing the Foundation that he gave the name “NoVO” which in Latin means change, alter, or invent. He accepts the classic definition of philanthropy according to its Greek roots: philo- which means love and anthropos which means humankind. “Philanthropy means nothing more or less than the expression of the love we feel for one another, the sense of solidarity that makes us want to share.” It is not all about money. All of us each in our way can share whatever we have in the spirit of philanthropy.
Another approach that he wants to avoid is “Philanthropic Colonialism.” It was the first time that I heard it being used when he made a passing reference to it in his presentation. Somehow it resonated with me in my explorations on Post-Colonial theology. I sensed the sentiment behind it which relates to colonial mentality. So I took the opportunity to go up to him and thanked him for his sensitivities. I must have surprised him that I was struck by what he said. Later I read his book that elaborated on this term.
Philantrophic colonialism is “the tendency of (generally) well-meaning outsiders to imagine that they understand the challenges facing local peoples better than the local people themselves. Imagine that they understand the problems, they further imagine that they can impose solutions. Not only is this arrogant and condescending, but it usually doesn’t work. So our approach would be to provide support for people who identified their own needs and evolved their own solutions.”
This was the historical folly of colonizers and missionaries who brought Western ideas, clothes, morals and religion itself to the colonies and trampled on local traditions and destroyed local cultures.
The premise that Peter works upon in his philanthropy is that people are equal. “If you believe in the dignity and value of any human life – including your own!- then you should recognize the equal dignity and value of every human life…But if people imagine that they are somehow superior to those they are helping, the result is not true kindness, but condescension.”
Peter continues to grow in his music and philanthropic work and wants to give more of himself and what he has with a grateful heart for the privileged situation in which he is in. He is clear “that all of us should be proud of our lives, because making a life is the one profound and sacred opportunity shared by every person ever born. Life is what we made it. No one else can do it for us; no one else has the right to tell us what it ought to be.
We make our own goals. We define our own successes. We don’t get to choose where we start in life; we do get to choose the kind of people we become.”
He concluded with the question: What are you waiting for?
When I attended the Credit Suisse Philanthropists Forum 2011 in Raffles Hotel, Singapore I received an autographed copy of a recent New York Times Bestseller book which was given to each of the 150 participants - “Life is What You Make It: Find Your Own Path to Fulfillment” by Peter Buffett. I admit that I did not know anything about the author before and he is indeed the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Bill and Melinda Gates commented that the book captures Peter’s spirit, passion and values beautifully in reflecting on life’s purpose and opportunity.
What a privilege it was to hear him speak at one of the sessions of the Forum which was moderated by Sir John Major, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. How enlightening it is to read his book about his own examination of the way he manages his life – his passion, his wealth, and his commitment to philanthropy. He revealed the contours of his life’s journey given the fortunate and privileged circumstances that surrounded him and sought to motivate others in their own special situations.
It is a book about attitudes, convictions and values that shape every person’s life. His credentials is simply his own life that has forced him “to think long and hard about these matters.”
Peter recalls the opinion of his father about inherited wealth; “that the silver spoon in the mouth too often becomes the silver dagger in the back – an ill-considered gift that saps ambition and drains motivation, that deprives a young person of the great adventure of finding his or her own way.” Another principle that he got from his father is that parents if they have the means should give their children “enough to do anything, but not enough to do nothing.”
His own adventure as a teenager was a vague and confused one even uncertain about finishing high school. His parents approach was that the children could be whatever they wanted to be and they should follow their hearts or bliss wherever they led them.
When he was growing up his parents were not wealthy yet but had some influence to get him admitted to Stanford University although he realised that he did not deserve to be there because of his own academic record and interest. He was naturally curious and benefitted from the broad liberal education without a precise career goal.
At the age of nineteen he received his first family inheritance of about $90,000 in the form of stocks and was told that he should not expect more at that time. This became a challenge for him to use what was given to him. He could have wasted it by spending on luxuries and pamper himself. If he had done nothing and left it alone the stock would eventually fetch seventy-two million dollars. But he chose in what he said to spend the money to buy time.
The time is related to his decision to pursue a career in music. It is to have time and technologies to develop his passion for music. He moved from Omaha to San Francisco. He lived frugally and turned his small apartment to a recording studio and offered his services. He began to write music himself and looking for that distinctive “sound” which identifies his creative work.
He realised the true value of money. Money is replaceable. But what you have done with money in terms of experience, value, fulfillment are important. Peter was able to make his life and find his vocation. He became a composer of music for commercials and for the movies. His pinnacle of success was the “Firedance” scene in the Oscar-winning film, “Dances with Wolves.” He received also the Emmy Award as a composer.
The message that he wants to communicate is that “money should be seen as a spin-off of success, a side effect, and not the measure of success itself.”
He observed his parents who have grown very wealthy. His mother was still the “warm and giving person.” His father still worked “wearing his trance-like concentration along with his khaki pants and cardigans.” Money did not change them for making money was not the prime objective. He wrote: “My father worked extremely hard because he loved what he did, because it challenged and excited him. Money came eventually, but the passion and the curiosity were there from the start. Money followed: it never led.”
On Christmas 1999 Warren Buffett endowed a charitable foundation for each of his three children. Each was given ten million dollars and Peter and his wife Jennifer received further contributions from his parents and by 2004 the foundation they established grew to more than one hundred million dollars. In 2006 Warren Buffet deposited $37 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He added one billion dollars to each of his children’s foundation. While protecting his career as a musician Peter became more involved in philanthropy.
Peter formulated some guiding principles in managing the Foundation that he gave the name “NoVO” which in Latin means change, alter, or invent. He accepts the classic definition of philanthropy according to its Greek roots: philo- which means love and anthropos which means humankind. “Philanthropy means nothing more or less than the expression of the love we feel for one another, the sense of solidarity that makes us want to share.” It is not all about money. All of us each in our way can share whatever we have in the spirit of philanthropy.
Another approach that he wants to avoid is “Philanthropic Colonialism.” It was the first time that I heard it being used when he made a passing reference to it in his presentation. Somehow it resonated with me in my explorations on Post-Colonial theology. I sensed the sentiment behind it which relates to colonial mentality. So I took the opportunity to go up to him and thanked him for his sensitivities. I must have surprised him that I was struck by what he said. Later I read his book that elaborated on this term.
Philantrophic colonialism is “the tendency of (generally) well-meaning outsiders to imagine that they understand the challenges facing local peoples better than the local people themselves. Imagine that they understand the problems, they further imagine that they can impose solutions. Not only is this arrogant and condescending, but it usually doesn’t work. So our approach would be to provide support for people who identified their own needs and evolved their own solutions.”
This was the historical folly of colonizers and missionaries who brought Western ideas, clothes, morals and religion itself to the colonies and trampled on local traditions and destroyed local cultures.
The premise that Peter works upon in his philanthropy is that people are equal. “If you believe in the dignity and value of any human life – including your own!- then you should recognize the equal dignity and value of every human life…But if people imagine that they are somehow superior to those they are helping, the result is not true kindness, but condescension.”
Peter continues to grow in his music and philanthropic work and wants to give more of himself and what he has with a grateful heart for the privileged situation in which he is in. He is clear “that all of us should be proud of our lives, because making a life is the one profound and sacred opportunity shared by every person ever born. Life is what we made it. No one else can do it for us; no one else has the right to tell us what it ought to be.
We make our own goals. We define our own successes. We don’t get to choose where we start in life; we do get to choose the kind of people we become.”
He concluded with the question: What are you waiting for?
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Philanthropic Colonialism
Credit Suisse held an Inaugural Philanthropists Forum in Singapore in Raffles Hotel. It was opened by Senior Ministry Goh Chok Tong. The theme was “The Road to Giving.” The bank invited philanthropists, practitioners and thought leaders of the field who travelled on that road to this Forum.
Among the impressive list is Peter Buffet (Musician and philanthropist and son of Warren Buffett, Jamie Zobel de Ayala II (Chairman and CEO of Ayala Corporation), Somsook Boonyaancha (Sec-Gen of Asian Coalition for Housing Rights). Rt Hon Sir John Major (former Prime Minister UK), HRH Raja Zarith binti Almarhum Sultan Idris Shah (Sultanah of Johore), Niu Gensing (Chairman Lao Niu Foundation), Apolo Ohno (Winter Olympian and Supporter of Special Olympics).
It is to the credit of the Bank for organizing such an event as an act of Corporate Social Responsibility and lifting philanthropy from the level of charity in giving to the poor and needy to the higher level of development in solving the problems of humanity in our already crowded planet earth. The further need is for more clarity about the social vision or the goals of social transformation – moving from individualism to a sense of community and crossing the boundaries that divide our society.
Peter Buffet made a reference to what he termed “philanthropic colonialism.” I resonated with that observation and went up to him to express appreciation for his sensitivities of the question of power which are in the hands of those who hold economic wealth. The responsibility to travel the road to giving is greater than the road to gaining wealth.
When the HRH Raja Zarith shared about her philanthropic acts she does not just distribute gifts but also engaged the poor villagers and interact with them in order to understand their plight and their needs. I had the opportunity to compliment her and also on her published comment on the current controversy between the Christians and Muslims appealing for more mutual respect and understanding.
I was reminded of an account in my recent reading of a Congress of Disability in 1981 in Winnipeg, Canada. Among the 3,000 delegates only 200 were disabled. The disabled participants requested for more participation in the proceedings but was refused. So they left the hall and held their own meeting. The issue is that in addressing the issue of disability they did not fully consider the views and feelings of those who are differently-abled. The tag line of the differently-abled people is “Nothing about us without us.” Practitioners of philanthropy must take into account the voices of the people whom they want to help. The approach in that situation was a shift in emphasis of awareness of disability from a medical diagnoses and viewing disabled people as patients with a problem to that of people who are differently-abled as normal human beings with rights. One model is for the individual to adjust to those in power in society, the other is for the need of society to adjust to those who have less power.
This is what philanthropic colonialism can lead to. People in need are not to be marginalized, silenced, disempowered and become passive recipients of the largesse of the advantaged practitioners of philanthropy.
The rules of engagement is to socially embrace and celebrate the differences we have with one another. We are all differently-abled with wealth, intellect, physique, emotions. We are all disabled in one form or another and no one is perfect. The catchword that I caught from another conference of handicapped people is “My handicap is visible what is yours?”
Let us abandon the temptation of being patronizing in our philanthropy and seeking self-interest as an individual or corporation. Let us be truly socially responsible and support one another and mutually evolve a more caring and compassionate society.
Among the impressive list is Peter Buffet (Musician and philanthropist and son of Warren Buffett, Jamie Zobel de Ayala II (Chairman and CEO of Ayala Corporation), Somsook Boonyaancha (Sec-Gen of Asian Coalition for Housing Rights). Rt Hon Sir John Major (former Prime Minister UK), HRH Raja Zarith binti Almarhum Sultan Idris Shah (Sultanah of Johore), Niu Gensing (Chairman Lao Niu Foundation), Apolo Ohno (Winter Olympian and Supporter of Special Olympics).
It is to the credit of the Bank for organizing such an event as an act of Corporate Social Responsibility and lifting philanthropy from the level of charity in giving to the poor and needy to the higher level of development in solving the problems of humanity in our already crowded planet earth. The further need is for more clarity about the social vision or the goals of social transformation – moving from individualism to a sense of community and crossing the boundaries that divide our society.
Peter Buffet made a reference to what he termed “philanthropic colonialism.” I resonated with that observation and went up to him to express appreciation for his sensitivities of the question of power which are in the hands of those who hold economic wealth. The responsibility to travel the road to giving is greater than the road to gaining wealth.
When the HRH Raja Zarith shared about her philanthropic acts she does not just distribute gifts but also engaged the poor villagers and interact with them in order to understand their plight and their needs. I had the opportunity to compliment her and also on her published comment on the current controversy between the Christians and Muslims appealing for more mutual respect and understanding.
I was reminded of an account in my recent reading of a Congress of Disability in 1981 in Winnipeg, Canada. Among the 3,000 delegates only 200 were disabled. The disabled participants requested for more participation in the proceedings but was refused. So they left the hall and held their own meeting. The issue is that in addressing the issue of disability they did not fully consider the views and feelings of those who are differently-abled. The tag line of the differently-abled people is “Nothing about us without us.” Practitioners of philanthropy must take into account the voices of the people whom they want to help. The approach in that situation was a shift in emphasis of awareness of disability from a medical diagnoses and viewing disabled people as patients with a problem to that of people who are differently-abled as normal human beings with rights. One model is for the individual to adjust to those in power in society, the other is for the need of society to adjust to those who have less power.
This is what philanthropic colonialism can lead to. People in need are not to be marginalized, silenced, disempowered and become passive recipients of the largesse of the advantaged practitioners of philanthropy.
The rules of engagement is to socially embrace and celebrate the differences we have with one another. We are all differently-abled with wealth, intellect, physique, emotions. We are all disabled in one form or another and no one is perfect. The catchword that I caught from another conference of handicapped people is “My handicap is visible what is yours?”
Let us abandon the temptation of being patronizing in our philanthropy and seeking self-interest as an individual or corporation. Let us be truly socially responsible and support one another and mutually evolve a more caring and compassionate society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
