Over and above S$2 million: NTUC offers condolences
Some corporations, really big ones, like Pfizer, Amazon.com, Citigroup, Cisco Systems, Bristol-Myers Squibb, have rallied in response to the tsunami disaster by donating generously.
Over here, our very own very big quasi-corporation, NTUC, 'expresses her deepest heartfelt condolences to the families of victims affected by last Sunday's tsunami that struck many parts of Asia, following the earthquake off the coast of Aceh, Sumatra.
The Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF), on behalf of the labour movement, has made a S$20,000 donation to those affected in the region through the Red Cross.
Additionally, 5,000 food relief packages worth S$50,000 and weighing some 1.5-million tonnes have been sent to Colombo, Sri Lanka by NTUC Fairprice, which is working with Mercy Relief to raise up to S$100,000 for tsunami victims.
Staples will also be channelled to Aceh where the quake was hardest hit. On 1 Jan 2005, members of the public can also purchase Food Relief Packages at S$10 each from Fairprice supermarkets, which will then be sent to Aceh and other parts of India. Donation cans will also be placed at all Fairprice outlets from today'.
As some Singaporeans are wont to say, very big corporations here must have very good reason for not being as generous as say, Abbott Laboratories. But you know what? Right now I just feel like telling some large local corporation they're a fcuking ntuc.
posted by Mr Miyagi at 12/30/2004 05:09:00 PM
14 Comments:
Your dyslexic readers probably understood the last line right away ...
Hey, my company donated more than BMS leh... why didn't you mention it? Wait, you mean this isn't a competition?
And is it just me or did they throw in that the food relief weighed 1.5 million tonnes so to hope that readers will be distracted and think NTUC donated 1.5M dollars instead.
Again, its not the measly amount of donation that scares me. What scares me it that they're so damn proud of it!
They would be proud of themselves whether they are generously giving or just paying lip service. At least consider matching the public's donations of the $10 Food Relief Packages, on top of your 1.5-million tones of packages, can ?
Someone told me that Malaysia is off our aid list ?
tsk tsk. such righteous anger. read up on coca-cola and pfizer's recent run-ins with the indian govt and things may become clearer.
Yeah, angry 'cos it's like witnessing someone seriously hurt in a car accident and all you do is throw a packet of tissues.
No I don't know if NTUC is profiting from the $10 relief packs.
Anyone know what's in those packs?
Read on Sammyboy's that those Food Packs are actually stuff that was expiring anyway, and were going to be written off by them. Dunno if it is true (it IS Sammyboy, after all). If it is, wah lau eh.
But I agree that with the Red Cross declaring that cash is best, it seems strange to me that NTUC is still doing this in kind.
It is appropriate for NTUC to donate in kind because even if Red Cross receives cash, they'll have to purchase the same items at a higher price anyway. So isn't it better to obtain them at cost price and send it to them? Which is to say, $50,000 can buy alot more food if bought at cost price than if bought from other vendors by Red Cross.
I think you should read the articles in Business Times today to see how S'pore is contributing before you get on your political hobbyhorse and call local corporations cunts.
Political hobby horse? Siao! Read the post again leh.
"Anonymous" - assumptions so many I even wouldn't attempt to unpack all.
"Which is to say, $50,000 can buy alot more food if bought at cost price than if bought from other vendors by Red Cross."
You've mixed up RC with the UN agencies. And assumed too much about the mastodon of local supermarkets.
chainsawieldinun
By accusing the supermarket of selling food near it's expiry date, haven't the others made assumptions too? If food is what NTUC is well positioned to donate, what's wrong with donating food? What percent of your own annual income have YOU donated, anyway.
Are you directing that question at Mr Brown, Anonymous? I can't really tell. I can never really tell what people named Anonymous are trying to say, usually. But I did donate 2% of my annual income.
I think it is pointless to argue or judge based on how much or what is given. Perhaps we should focus on the deed and see the positive side of things. Giving is in itself a good deed. There are those who give little but from the heart and others who give much with a hidden agenda. I will also not judge others by how much I am giving or doing because everybody's financial responsibility is unique.
Post a Comment
<< Home