[Buddha-l] Re: "So much for tsunami dana"

[Andrew Skilton]

On 11/10/05 JKirk rewrote:

: The more local the organizing, the better chance they might have to escape
: corruption because the more local, the more visible.
: In the case of Sri Lanka and other Asian areas, I doubt if such organization
: will happen or that any of it will be corruption-free. Civil society in
: these countries is weak. 

I recall a recent UN report that estimated that, of the 10 billion dollars sunk
into Cambodia by international agencies over the last decade, only 1 billion had
reached the target - i.e. desperately poor Cambodian people. Spectacular!

Is not what we call corruption pretty much the norm in traditional societies?
(The use of status/power to generate revenue.) My interest in this question is
really how best I might offer aid. Via a local agency of some kind is all very
well while that agency survives the disaster event. The vihara I mentioned was
only partially demolished by the tsunami and therefore half survived and could
still function, but events in Kashmir surely have eliminated some of the very
agencies that we might have supported?

In broader terms, I feel driven to the conclusion that the best recourse for me
is to engage in direct personal dana - which curiously, I feel embarrassed by -
doubtless my cultural conditioning operating here. When I resort to impersonal
giving, via a charity or regular bank debits, I tend to feel that I am
contracting out my generosity.  Like I am trying to shut it away in a cupboard
to allow my conscience to feel at ease.  But maybe giving has an uncomfortable
edge for the donor? 

Andrew


***********************************
Andrew Skilton D. Phil.

email: skiltonat at cardiff.ac.uk

***********************************