IT is all about being transparent from the start when diverting money from one cause to another.
That's what some donors and charity officials told The New Paper.
Said Ms Josephine Lee, 56, a civil servant: 'The article stated specifically that the money would go to setting up libraries, buying reading materials and improving classroom conditions.
'Not funding the trip of three RJC teachers to go there and do some training on creative sciences.
'I'm not discounting the work of the volunteers, but it's just not right to tell donors one thing, and then use the money in another way.'
Another donor, Madam Lee Yew Huang, 59, an administrative assistant, said seeing the pictures of the poor children in Laos or Cambodia made her want to donate, and help improve their school.
Said Madam Lee, who donated $10 to the Metro Fund in 2003: 'But now, I find that out of the $158,000 raised in 2002, only $6,100 went to this charity that was featured, and it wasn't even to buy books or build libraries as published.'
Mr Ho Ka Wei, 31, a civil servant, said: 'Unless I know my money will go to the people I read about, and not for air tickets for volunteers to visit these people, I will not donate.'
Said Mr David Ong, president of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (Singapore): 'At the time of appeal for donations, it is important to let donors know how you will disburse your funds. Does the money go directly to beneficiaries?
'But donors must also ask the right questions - on how exactly the funds will be used, and if the project... can be sustained.'
Such information was made available in this case.
Last year's Metro for Children fundraising campaign had stated on the SIF website that it hoped to raise $140,000 for Singapore volunteers to carry out projects in Cambodia.
The SIF website also explained that donations to the fund would allow Singapore volunteers to work with three charities in Cambodia.
Should money be always put in the hands of the beneficiaries?
CORRUPT?
Some donors feel giving the money raised directly to the charities involved may not be the best way to disburse funds.
Said Mr Chris Wan, 29, an engineer: 'As donated funds sometimes go unaccounted for, or into the wrong or corrupt hands, especially in Third World countries, funding volunteers may be the best way to ensure the funds are used primarily for charitable purposes.'
The head of a voluntary welfare organisation here, who declined to be named, agreed.
Of the Padetc-SIF case, he said: 'This may simply be an issue of poor communication between the funding agency, and the beneficiary, not so much a matter of ethics. As long as the Singaporean volunteers go out there and do good work, the money has been well-spent.'
TOUCHY ISSUE
A spokesman from the National Council of Social Service said it has not received any complaints about SIF's fundraising practices.
The use of charity dollars has become a touchy issue after the NKF scandal.
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer gave the National Kidney Foundation a grant of $75,000 so doctors could be trained to improve their management of patients on dialysis.
Instead, NKF used part of the funds to print Christmas cards for an event organised by the Kids and Teens Marketing department.
A Pfizer spokesman said, in an e-mail reply to TNP's questions: 'The disbursement of the fund was left to the recipient to manage for the purpose intended.
'We feel it is best to leave the matter in the hands of the experts and the authorities who are looking into the matter.'
No comments:
Post a Comment