Dismaying exploitation of charity

The Boys' Brigade has a yearly Sharity Gift Box programme for the needy. A used black bra was among the 'donated' items. I am immune to it and yet flabbergasted at it. This is a paradox, yes.

I have read about locals doing this more than once but my shock is due to the fact that this is the first time I had bought new items for the Gift Box recipients, and this act just undermines mine. There were expired food and second-hand clothes as well, but this blew my breath away. It is a personal lingerie item which should not be given as a present. This just adds to other similar items like broken toys, dirty clothes and rotten rice. All are astoundingly repulsive.

The recipients are just like the people we give presents to: family, friends and colleagues. They don't deserve such items. Besides, this only serves to give the volunteers more work in picking them out before wrapping the rest of the items. Such selfishness is too terrible to behold.

A letter was written in response to the trash donated to the Salvation Army. Even typing this sentence out appalls me. Those that equally repulse me are: dead plants, chairs without legs, television sets with cracked screens, couches with dubious stains and stuffing protruding, one shoe and a bicycle with no wheels. What callousness on the donors' part! These are meant to be sold to customers! They may be less financially able as the donors are, but they certainly deserve to have products that are sold to them in good condition!

The irony is that the writer witnessed donors dumping a cracked plantpot into the donation bin while acting guiltily about it. If they knew it was wrong, why did they still do it? Senseless people! I like the way the writer ended his letter though. He brought up the possibility of their need to patronise the Salvation Army in future. That would be a moment I look forward to.

Twitter's outreach

This is not about the benefits or effects of Twitter, but rather about an article pertaining to a mother using it while her son was being saved from drowning. This particular phrase has already warranted protests by now, I am sure. However, while I was reading the article, I actually found nothing wrong with her act.

The paramedics were trying to revive her son and she went on Twitter only to ask for prayers for him. There is nothing wrong with this. When he passed on, she went on the website to announce it. Again, it can be a form of asking for prayers for his soul and of trying to gain emotional support. It can also be an update to her previous post.

I cannot fathom why there is outrage at her acts. One of the reasons is because she shared something very personal on Twitter. Some of the statuses on Facebook are even more personal! There is no justification, really. I feel that there was no need for her to remove the posts due to unfounded social pressure.

KPO's hopeless at providing basic customer service

The fact that its name was blatantly mentioned in this letter shows the anger the customer felt towards the owner. I don't blame her. The owner may have been unhappy at the police's arrival which disrupted his business operations, but there was no need to raise his voice at a customer who was feeling anxious over her lost handphone. How insensitive is that? He gave her no 'face' by doing so in front of the people in the restaurant. The police's act was hidden from plain sight and so his fuss was unnecessary. It was good that she stood up to him and asked him if she was a customer too. With that question, he knew that he had lost the battle and left the scene.

She brought up a good point by citing the service charge each table of guests must pay as part of the total bill. Such a charge is presently made compulsory but the owner had acted in a way that made it only right for her service charge to be waived.

Ris Low's new venture

I have always been innately critical of her even though I try to be objective in sizing her up. Her latest plan is holding her own version of a beauty pageant. The three awards given out during the pageant are already being done so in legitimate settings. Isn't she not adhering to copyright issues here? She may just get sued for it. Also, she seems strangely proud of it when she labels her pageant as "grand" and "national". Hers is not the only one like that, if it is even legitimate in the first place.

Confusion ensues too when she uses award titles like Gorgeous Young Lady, Hulky Dashing Man and Beautiful Married Woman to describe Miss Singapore, Mr Singapore and Mrs Singapore. Why not just use these self-made labels? At least she won't have to contend with copyright issues. She claims that the three winners can go on to compete on the international platforms. Will it seriously happen? She will have to liaise with the international organizers about her "legitimate" pageant and its winners. Will they even approve of it, much less agree to it?

She seems too coy when asked to reveal more details and the number of sponsors pertaining to her pageant. It shows that her venture may just fall through, perhaps due to the lack of adequate preparation or the lack of sponsors who have seen through its inconcrete nature.

It is one thing to bounce back from adversity with the lessons learnt from prior experiences, but it is another thing to do it in such a dubious manner which will only lead to a greater fall. She has advertised her own grooming classes for women who are thinking of making it big in beauty pageants but seriously, a person who plans to hold such things should not only be adept in language skills but also have a moral character.

Ingratitude personified at its greatest

A Chinese national minimart owner donated $20 000 worth of groceries to the needy out of the kindness of his own heart, but his gesture was not appreciated and was even complained about. Such ungrateful locals! He took the trouble to do it even though he could have been like any other minimart owner. Is it so hard to say even a word of thanks?! Some even lament the insufficiency of the goods and the fact that he did not open his minimart early in the morning. The audacity and greed of such people stun me. Some others take advantage of him by hoping to get a salary through working for him or by attempting to get free goods in pretending to be blind.

At the same time, I feel a comment was misinterpreted by him and his wife. The lady who explained why they should not have given free groceries is not wrong. The recipients will just use those goods to earn a profit for themselves.

After such ingratitude and unscrupulous reactions to his good deed, he has learnt his lesson and limited his donations to once per month. :) Still, his aspirations have soared to the skies. He wants to host a free clinic for old people at his minimart. These 2 businesses don't complement each other though. The free delivery service sounds feasible but the free set of cheap toothpaste and toothbrush to those aged over 50 will probably cause complaints again, knowing how materialistic most locals are.

His plans are noble but I hope such goodwill will survive this cynical society around him.

An update on him was reported some time later. He started a free breakfast service and again, people started to complain. They chose to see the flaws in his project instead of appreciating his compassionate heart. Granted, he had chosen the wrong setting to carry it out, but the criticism smacks of insensible ingratitude. He has now planned to change the setting to a stall.

He is unbelievably understanding towards his critics and feels that the reason for their criticism is due to the fact that he had not met their expectations. What expectations? The people who complain are the financially stable ones. His compassion was not originally extended to them.