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

Every year, the President's Star Charity Show is broadcasted, celebrities come up and perform, and encourage viewers to call in to donate some money. Some people might question: are these shows merely using celebrities to milk compassion, and is the risk worth it?

Firstly, there is no reason to think that the President's Star Charity is a fraud. Several years ago, the NKF scandal occured, where donors' money was extravagantly wasted on most famously, gold toilet bowl seats. Despite being a 'localised' incident, since only NKF was involved, it did have a fairly significant 'splash' effect, and rather severly impacted the reputation of Singapore charities. However, this is only one charity, out of the many in Singapore. It does not mean that just because one person in a group is wrong, the whole group is at fault, and it is unfair to suspect other charities of fraud just because of NKF.

Some people may feel that celebrities may be unecessary for such a cause like fund raising for the sick and the needy, and are a waste of funds. However, there is most definitely a point to bringing celebrities into the picture. Normally, for most of us, we never have time, or we are simply too distracted to think about the needy. By having such a large scale event, that is also broadcasted on televison, this brings the needs of such people to our attention. Celebrities serve to maintain our interest, and try to grab our attention to donate to the charities, to help the needy. They are rendering their time and service to help others, not just for the money, or the fame. Admittedly, for some, money may be the sole motivation, however, I feel, it is wrong to apply this stereotype to the other celebrities, and it is very unfair. Although the celebrities may be milking public sympathy, the money is certainly going to a good cause. If the Singapore public is too self-centred to help others in need, then it will have to be coaxed, albeit in a non-forceful manner, into voluntarily doing so. If they still refuse to help, then so be it. Charities are not like Robin Hood--steal from the rich to feed the poor--instead, they are there to persuade people to help the needy.

One question that arises, as actors, or daredevils, do dangerous stunts to promote charitable causes, is whether the risk is really worth it. I feel that this can be kind of a grey area, especially when the life of an stuntsman is at stake. Consider the following scenario: A stuntsman is climbing a blade ladder. Ultimately, if he survives unscathed, or is injured or even killed, the money gained from people donating because of his act is sufficient to help many people who are desperately in need (in fact, if he is injured, it is possible that this may stir up even more symphathy, and garner more donations as before). The question now is: Is the life or wellbeing of a single person greater than the benefit of a multitude of people in need? This question has cropped up before rather famously. At the time, President Truman, of the United States, was presented with an atom bomb, and a dilemma: Should he destroy millions of lives, just to save countless more? At the time, he was advised that not dropping the bomb to accelerate the defeat of Japan, would cost countless lives before the war would end. Although whether Japan could actually have put up such a fight is in question, that was what he thought was true at the time. Eventually, Truman chose the bomb, and in this vastly scaled down version of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so have the organisers. However, there is one vital difference between the two scenarios, and is critical in deciding whether the risk is worth it: In the case of the stuntman, he has a say as well if he is willing to risk his life. President Truman had decided not to warn the Japanese, one reason of which was that his military advisors wanted the bomb to achieve maximum suprise value, by having it be used as a normal weapon of war. Personally, I feel, that as long as the stuntsman gives his consent, any risk is worthwhile and justified as long as it is within the bounds of the agreement.

All in all, although Charity shows may be milking compassion for larger donations, as long as the money is truly going to a worthy cause, who, really, is to complain?