President’s Star Charity Show- is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

Firstly, considering the existence of the embezzlements of charity funds, The common response from people who are asked to donate when charity shows are on is, “What for donate to these charity shows because I don’t know who are going to benefit directly from them? I might as well, donate to that homeless and destitute guy who’s begging for money at the train station.”

Sad to say, I have that same mentality. What people and the charities really want is not a charity show that showcases different talents performing and flaunting their beauty and sexiness, (almost) ‘begging’ for donations and just plain wasting resources during the 2-3 hours of broadcast.

Rather, we need transparency and accountability in place before we are thrown off with such entertainments which are in the name of a good cause. So what if the most important person in the country paints calligraphy? People need him to show them how the money that they put into this charity show is being used in every single charity. Everyone knows it’s being use to help Charity Organization A, B, C… but how and in what ways?

Before the charity show can begin seeing a spike in donations and overwhelming compassionate response from the public to donate during a 3 hour entertainment show, there’s a need to treat people who part with the money like shareholders of these charities - account for what they are being used for, how and well, who’s benefiting directly from it. Without such transparency and proper accounting in place, nobody’s going to trust a man or even a monk with a few million dollars.

The event used to be a visual treat for the viewers with Mediacorp artistes and international starts like Jacky Cheung and Emil Chow, performing and entertaining for that charity dollar. Well, not anymore. The show has degenerated into an obstacle course of nails, swords, bees etc. In order to draw calls, one would have to risk life and limb, Fear Factor-style. Our very own Mediacorp stars had to perform stunts which demanded physical strength, concentration and lots of courage. One must wonder if the purpose was to raise funds or to out-do one another. Our artistes are professionals in acting, not stunts. Is charity work a justifiable reason for putting them at risk of possible deaths or permanent injuries? Having a high threshold for pain is not equivalent to having a big heart. Worse, the appeal of their grueling acts was ranked according to the number of calls made. I wonder if the calls were made because the audience cannot bear to witness their sufferings and bid to stop their acts, rather than out of goodwill to donate.

German playwright Berthold Brecht once wrote that a man who sees a beggar with only a stump of an arm will be shocked the first time. He'll give his six pence. The second time, it'll only be three-penny sympathy and if he sees him a third time, he'll have him handed over to the police.

Perhaps, there should have been more transparency and more communication. Charity organizations should have considered the opinions of the donors before embarking on the tie-up. Then again, will people want more information? How many of us bother to ask the school children holding donation tins outside MRT stations which charity they are helping or how the money will be distributed? Not that they would have the answers either. I remembered myself participating in a charity drive in my primary school days, and never had a clue about how my one single tin can was going to help. Which shelter home was I helping, what was the total amount rose by the school, how much went into buying medicine or food? These were the questions I should have asked, and not whether have I clocked enough hours for my community service.