|
這幾天台灣的媒體與社會，上至總統，下至市井小民，簇擁著被《時代》雜誌冠以英雄光環的陳樹菊女士。一介平凡女子對其家庭、鄰里、社會的愛心與無私奉獻，著實令人動容，也為長期以來陷入政治紛擾的台灣社會，注入一股暖流。然而，在整個社會為之風靡的現象背後，有一些議題值得深入省思。 首先，我們感到好奇的是，這個獎是怎麼選出的？甄選機制如何進行？國外媒體如何得知台灣一個平凡民眾的善行？我們並不質疑陳女士得到各界肯定本身的正當性，但只要上網搜尋即可發現，陳女士被人推薦給《富比士》雜誌，由其編輯群審查後入選為亞洲地區四十八個慈善英雄之一，之後又被《時代》雜誌推選為世界最具影響力的百人之一。 《富比士》雜誌乃以財經界人士為主要讀者群，專為世界富豪名人排名。我們好奇的是，為什麼這個標榜創業致富、崇尚財富與地位聲望的雜誌，會對陳女士給予青睞？透過這些排名，凸顯又是怎麼樣的價值觀？ 擁有財富與地位聲望的人，往往喜愛歌頌慈善行為，卻厭惡那些動輒質疑財富分布、挑戰不公平社會權力結構，甚至意圖進行社會改革的人。在許多例子中，皆可看到類似現象。例如，在貧窮問題嚴重的孟加拉，就出了一個廣受國際社會讚揚的二○○六年諾貝爾和平獎得主尤努斯，但卻很少人知道有一個致力於公衛改革的賈福拉醫師。 尤努斯創辦窮人銀行，鼓勵貧窮婦女貸款創業，是個具有人道關懷與社會責任的銀行家，但他不挑戰造成貧窮的權力結構，且鼓勵個人創業，相當符合西方主流社會的資本主義邏輯，因此也成為了國際發展政策的座上賓。 相對地，賈福拉醫師致力於推動平價藥品的普及，在參與國家藥品政策的改革過程中，牽動了藥品涉及的龐大利益，屢遭既得利益者打壓，差點被暗殺，在國際媒體中也較少受到關注。如同上述例子，在許多社會中，既得利益者似乎都傾向於讚美個人主義式的慈善美德，但卻往往忽略，甚至刻意壓制，那些積極改善不公平權力結構的人。 在我們給予陳女士喝采之餘，更需要思考的是，若有學校籌不出經費蓋圖書館，是否教育資源的分配出了問題？當有些學童的學費仰賴善心人士捐助，是否社福與教育體系需要改善？若有民眾的健保費得仰賴捐款，是否需要檢討保費制度？我們期待的是促進互助合作的社會制度，而非更多的慈善家。 |
Charity does not change the system
By Yawen CHENG and Mayeesha Yuhwei TSENG
Published on Taipei Times, Thursday, May 20, 2010, Page 8
Over the last few days, we have seen people in Taiwan, from the president
down to the person on the street, fall over themselves praising Chen Shu-chu (陳樹菊) after Time magazine placed her on their 2010 Most
Influential list under the “Heroes” category for philanthropy. Her picture has
been splashed all over local newspapers. There’s no denying that the selfless
contribution this unassuming woman has made to her family, neighborhood, and the
wider society is very moving.
The first question we might ask is how the winners of this award were actually chosen. How did the international media get wind of the philanthropy of this Taiwanese woman? This is not to say that she is undeserving of the accolade given to her. A simple Internet search will tell you that she was originally recommended to Forbes magazine, after which the editors decided to include her in their list of the 48 top philanthropists for
Forbes is known for its annual rich list and its readership is composed primarily of people involved in finance. The magazine is most at home with moneymaking and obsesses over wealth, status, power, and prestige. Given that, what it is about Chen they found so interesting? After all, the rich list is, surely, exclusively focused on money.
The rich and powerful just love to praise charitable actions but balk at those who question the current distribution of wealth and challenge unfair social power structures, not to mention people who try to bring about social reforms.
For example, look at poverty-stricken
Yunus is the founder of Grameen Bank and has been instrumental in providing poor women with microcredit so they can improve their circumstances. As a banker, he is notable for his compassion and social responsibility, but he has never actually challenged the power structures that created the poverty in the first place. Also, by encouraging people to create personal wealth, he is subscribing to the Western mainstream capitalist paradigm, which goes some way to explaining why he has become the darling of international development policy.
By comparison, Chowdhury has worked hard to make inexpensive medicine universally available. He has done much to improve the national drug policy, but people with vested interests have constantly obstructed him to the point that an attempt was even made on his life. The international (that is, Western) media have also more or less turned a blind eye to his work.
In many societies, vested interests are quite happy to heap accolades on charity work done at the individual level, but have a habit of ignoring, or even blatantly obstructing, anyone who actively tries to change existing unfair and oppressive power structures.
We would like to applaud Chen for her work At the same time, however, it is important to keep a perspective on what is happening in our society.
We should be asking whether there are deeper issues such as the current allocation of education resources when schools cannot afford to build libraries; whether we need to take another look at our social welfare and education systems when some school children rely on charitable donations to pay for their tuition fees; and whether there is something wrong with our health insurance system when there are people out there who rely on handouts to keep up with their health insurance payments. What we would like to see is a social system that promotes mutual cooperation, instead of relying on more philanthropists.
Cheng Yawen is an associate professor at the
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
沒有留言:
張貼留言