During the past Olympics some companies promised a total prize of RM 4 Million in cash if any Malaysian would win us our very first gold medal. Unfortunately nobody came home with the gold, but that isn't the case in discussion. I overheard some people saying it's probably a good thing nobody won the cash prize, and it would be put to better use if these money were given to the poor and unfortunate. Well that's very noble of you to elect this money be given to the needy.
People have no idea how difficult it is being a national athlete and having to fight an ideology especially if they don't have a mentor to show them it's possible. I learnt this while climbing: everyone, given almost similar in skills and strength, will keep struggling on a problem until one manages to top out. Then everyone else will automatically be able to do the same, surprisingly, with less effort than they thought they needed. Its because they know it is now possible to do it. The case is same here with an Olympic gold. Because we have never gotten it before it will seem like an impossible task, especially for the pioneer.
Don't get me? Then you don't deserve to judge athletes and say their jobs are easy. If you think his gold medal incentive should be given to 'deserving' poor people, then lets also give all your increment and bonuses to the poorer people instead. Good idea, no?
While it may sound generous to be giving all the money to poorer people, one must also measure its effectiveness. For example, how many time have you seen people crossing busy roads right under the overhead bridge? Each overhead bridge takes almost a million bucks to build, and it was built to significantly reduce the risk of pedestrians trying to get to the other side. Money is only worth spending on people who deserve them. Many people are poor, not entirely but partly, because they choose to remain so. Wealth is not measured by how big your car or house, but how efficiently you use the limited resources you have. Wealth is measured by how much of your own lives you want to live.
So giving money and building free facilities for the poor will not solve poverty. But creating opportunities will. Award the deserving, regardless of wealth. They will spend some of the money, and these money will go into the pockets of other deserving people regardless of wealth, and so on and so on. And if the poor wants to become rich, they will need to show the world they deserve to be so.
So now that nobody won that gold medal. Do you think the companies will give the money away to charity anyway? Chances are not likely. But what if he'd won? He may use 1 million to buy himself a nice car, another 2 million a house and the final million to start a business. The car seller will make enough commission to send both her kids to a good private school. The house developer will be able to pay their contractors for the work and material spent building that house. The contractors will be able to put food on the home table. The business will hire workforce and rent real estate and take out loans from banks. You get where I'm headed. Everything described above would lead to opportunities for people to earn an honest living, and that was just the first stage.
It's silly for some people to blabber uneducated comments on how companies should 'better spend their dollars'. I have worked, very briefly, in one of those big banks. And I've gotten confirmation from friends in the industry that these multinationals are filled with useless people sitting around all day and getting fat paychecks for sucking up to their bosses. Managing their stakeholders, they say. Delegating jobs, they say. At least our athletes fought for something. At least they put themselves physically and mentally on the edge every time they step into the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment