A Chinese property baron has sparked a debate about the worthiness of charity recipients, writes Raymond Zhou。
Philanthropy is generally not a hotbed for controversy. But here in China you are watched closely if you hold your purse strings tight or let your money flow, and, in the latest case, the direction in which your money flows may also be a cause for concern。
據(jù)《中國(guó)日?qǐng)?bào)》報(bào)道，近日，中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)大亨潘石屹捐助哈佛大學(xué)中的中國(guó)寒門(mén)學(xué)子一事，引發(fā)網(wǎng)上熱議不斷。
通常來(lái)說(shuō)，慈善往往不會(huì)成為唇槍舌戰(zhàn)之地。但在中國(guó)，如果你把錢(qián)看得太緊，或是大筆花錢(qián)，你都會(huì)被別人緊緊盯上。就拿最近的例子來(lái)說(shuō)，就連你資金的流向也可能成為大家關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。
Pan Shiyi, a real estate tycoon who is a celebrity in his own right, ruffled feathers when he and his wife decided to donate $15 million to Harvard University in the United States。
潘石屹是房地產(chǎn)大亨，同時(shí)也稱(chēng)得上是位名人。當(dāng)他與妻子決定向美國(guó)哈佛大學(xué)捐款1500萬(wàn)美元時(shí)，卻引起了公憤。
The news on the grapevine was more dramatic: It said Pan gave $100 million. Later, he clarified that, saying he planned to set up a fund with a total of $100 million, of which $15 million is earmarked for Harvard, and specifically for needy students from China. Other schools being considered include Yale and other prestigious universities in the US and the UK。
有的小道消息更為離奇了，稱(chēng)潘石屹共捐了1億美元。隨后，他出面澄清，表示自己計(jì)劃設(shè)立總價(jià)值1億美元的“SOHO中國(guó)助學(xué)金”，其中的1500萬(wàn)用于捐助在哈佛就讀的中國(guó)寒門(mén)學(xué)子。耶魯?shù)绕渌⒚乐麑W(xué)府也在其考慮之列
Yao Shujie, an economist, spoke for many when he questioned Pan's motives: "Pan made his fortune from the property market in China. Why should he go all the way to the US for philanthropy? He forgot where his roots are."
Others suggested that Pan's donation was an effort to win admission for his son into the Boston school. Their rationale: the benchmark set by Pan for eligibility is 65,000 yuan ($10,500) in annual family income, which most middle-class Chinese families can easily cross and, therefore, not many from China will meet this requirement anyway。
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家姚樹(shù)潔質(zhì)疑潘石屹的捐款動(dòng)機(jī)，似乎想替很多人打抱不平：“潘石屹搞房地產(chǎn)，在中國(guó)這片土地上爆發(fā)橫財(cái)。為什么要大老遠(yuǎn)跑去美國(guó)做慈善，他富得忘了自己的皮膚是黃的。”
其他人則認(rèn)為潘石屹的捐款是為其子將來(lái)入讀波士頓名校“買(mǎi)門(mén)票”。這些人的原理是：潘石屹給助學(xué)金所設(shè)置的門(mén)檻是每年6.5萬(wàn)元(1.5萬(wàn)美元)的家庭收入，而大部分的中國(guó)中產(chǎn)階級(jí)家庭年收入絕不止這一數(shù)字。這么看來(lái)，并不是很多中國(guó)學(xué)子能達(dá)到這一要求。
Now, Pan is no Chen Guangbiao, a philanthropist who made his millions in recycling. Pan has dabbled in entertainment, even playing the male lead in a feature film, yet he does not go around trumpeting his altruistic deeds. He does have a much higher profile than most businessmen in China, but he earned it not from his business feats, but rather from his micro blog comments on public affairs。
As a matter of principle, Pan has the right to donate to whichever individual or organization he sees fit. It is none of the outsider's concern whether the recipient is Chinese or foreign. Every person has his or her own priorities when it comes to choosing a target for help。
Most Chinese now totally get this. Had this happened a decade or two ago, public feedback would have been predominantly negative, I'm certain, because most would have equated such an act with a lack of patriotism. This feeling still lingers, but it's shared by fewer and fewer people because the public can more easily understand the distinction between public and private rights。
潘石屹不像陳光標(biāo)那樣靠發(fā)展回收經(jīng)濟(jì)致富。潘涉足娛樂(lè)業(yè)，甚至還在電影《阿司匹林》中擔(dān)任男一號(hào)，他從事善行時(shí)，不會(huì)高調(diào)宣傳，比大部分的中國(guó)企業(yè)家都低調(diào)地多。但是，他的知名度并非源于商業(yè)上的豐功偉績(jī)，而是因其在微博上對(duì)社會(huì)事件作出的評(píng)論。
原則上，潘石屹有權(quán)利決定把錢(qián)捐給什么人或是什么機(jī)構(gòu)合適。至于受助者是中國(guó)人還是外國(guó)人，與外人無(wú)關(guān)。每個(gè)人在選擇援助對(duì)象時(shí)都有自己的優(yōu)先考慮。
現(xiàn)在，大多數(shù)的中國(guó)人都能明白這一點(diǎn)。這要是發(fā)生在十年、二十年以前，我很確定絕大多數(shù)的公眾輿論都會(huì)是負(fù)面的，因?yàn)樗麄儠?huì)把這種行為上綱上線到缺乏愛(ài)國(guó)主義精神�，F(xiàn)在雖然這種思想依舊存在，但已經(jīng)越來(lái)越少了，因?yàn)槿藗兏菀讌^(qū)分公共權(quán)利和私有權(quán)利之間的差別。
A few years ago, Zhang Lei, a Chinese financier, donated $8.88 million to Yale University, his alma mater. Had he been better known, he would have borne the brunt of a major ill-will campaign。
Detractors, for all their misplaced zeal to dictate private citizens' choice of charity, do apply a crude principle of economics when they see something like that. For a school such as Harvard, they reason, this money is the icing on the cake. It has so many donors that Pan's money would not yield the highest return on investment, if it is seen as an investment。
Ordinary Chinese do not use calculus to figure out which school needs donations the most, but we do have two colorful sayings that correspond to the rule of microeconomics: "Adding flowers to a big bouquet", and "Sending charcoal to someone trapped in snow." You get more bang for your buck if you do the latter, but that will require independent thinking。
幾年前，中國(guó)金融家張磊向母校耶魯大學(xué)捐贈(zèng)888萬(wàn)美元。他要是再出名些，他就會(huì)成為人們的眾矢之的。
批評(píng)人士雖對(duì)別人的慈善選擇是瞎操心了，但他們確實(shí)對(duì)此類(lèi)事件用上了一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)原理。他們推斷，對(duì)哈佛這類(lèi)的學(xué)校而言，這筆錢(qián)不過(guò)是錦上添花。他們的捐贈(zèng)者多如牛毛，如果把潘的捐款看成是一種投資行為，他也不會(huì)獲得最高的回報(bào)率。
普通中國(guó)人不會(huì)特意去計(jì)算哪所學(xué)校最需要捐款，但中國(guó)確實(shí)有兩句俗語(yǔ)恰如其分地應(yīng)和了這種微觀經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)原理：“錦上添花”和“雪中送炭”。如果選擇后者，你會(huì)更受關(guān)注，但這種做法需要自己的獨(dú)立思考。
多數(shù)投資者，不論是專(zhuān)業(yè)人士還是外行人，都有從眾心理去追逐那早已是眾人爭(zhēng)相追捧的事物。如果你把錢(qián)捐給哈佛大學(xué)或是中國(guó)的清華[微博]大學(xué)[微博]，你并不覺(jué)得有多么令人矚目。事實(shí)上，中國(guó)頂尖大學(xué)收到的私人捐款或是公共資助都比其他學(xué)校多得多。它們好比是高等學(xué)府百花園中最耀眼的花束，向它們投擲玫瑰或花瓣時(shí)所獲得的心理滿足感很可能比有形回報(bào)來(lái)得多。
按這種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)說(shuō)，捐贈(zèng)對(duì)象的國(guó)籍不是問(wèn)題，問(wèn)題在于誰(shuí)真的急需幫助。哈佛大學(xué)可能比清華大學(xué)需要更多的預(yù)算，因此，它能比中國(guó)的常規(guī)大學(xué)得到更多的資助。按邏輯說(shuō)來(lái)，最需要這種經(jīng)濟(jì)援助的，是那些供最低收入家庭就讀的貧困地區(qū)學(xué)校。
Most investors, professional or otherwise, would follow the herd mentality and chase objects everyone else is already hotly pursuing. You would feel you have rubbed off some of the glitter if you give money to Harvard or Tsinghua University in China. In fact, the top universities in China get proportionately much more in both private donations and public funding. They are the largest, most-prominent bouquets in the garden of higher education, and throwing roses or petals at them would probably yield more psychological returns than tangible ones。
By this yardstick, the problem with charity recipients is not their nationality, but rather which is in dire need of such help. Harvard may have a much larger budget than Tsinghua, which, in turn, is much better funded than a regular college in China. The ones most worthy of such financial assistance, as the logic goes, are those in poverty-stricken areas that cater to the lowest-income families。
As I gather from empirical evidence, this social stratum is given short shrift and deserves a strong and consistent inflow of funding. Education, if it be the great equalizer, should give students from underprivileged families equal opportunities so they can make a fresh start with their lives. But philanthropy alone is unable to solve this problem. It has to be from the State, which is implementing all kinds of programs for that purpose, but there is still great room for improvement。
A year ago, a photo surfaced online of a father carrying a desk to school for his daughter. It outraged the country. Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the local education authority, not the parents? Only in those areas not covered by the State can philanthropists fill the void。
從我的經(jīng)驗(yàn)性實(shí)例看來(lái)，這種社會(huì)階層并沒(méi)有得到重視，而且需要持續(xù)強(qiáng)勁的資金援助。如果教育是優(yōu)良的平衡器，那么它應(yīng)該給予貧困學(xué)子平等的機(jī)會(huì)，好讓他們開(kāi)啟新的人生。但光有慈善，僅是杯水車(chē)薪，解決不了問(wèn)題。國(guó)家必須帶頭，實(shí)施促進(jìn)教育公平的各個(gè)項(xiàng)目。而在這點(diǎn)上，努力的空間還很大。
一年前，一位父親為女兒扛著課桌去學(xué)校的照片在網(wǎng)上出現(xiàn)，這讓舉國(guó)上下頗為憤慨。這難道不應(yīng)該是當(dāng)?shù)亟逃值呢?zé)任，與父母何干?只有在這些國(guó)家遺漏的貧困地區(qū)，慈善家們才能填補(bǔ)空缺。
現(xiàn)在有很多基層項(xiàng)目。其中一個(gè)提供免費(fèi)午餐的項(xiàng)目尤為令人感動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗Y助了那些幾乎吃不起飯的學(xué)生。這筆錢(qián)能為他們提供稍好一些的食物，也能讓他們?cè)陂L(zhǎng)身體的時(shí)候獲得更充足的營(yíng)養(yǎng)。
你可以懷疑，哪種經(jīng)濟(jì)投資更為明智：是給世界知名學(xué)府捐贈(zèng)巨款，還是用同樣一筆錢(qián)捐助數(shù)千萬(wàn)身處腹地的孩子。如果將問(wèn)題討論地更深入一些，你就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)有很多年輕人過(guò)著更窮苦的生活。你或許并不清楚他們所在國(guó)家，但同樣一筆錢(qián)卻可以讓他們的生活發(fā)生翻天覆地的變化，這遠(yuǎn)比投資在中國(guó)荒僻之地來(lái)得更有意義。
There are many grassroots programs. The one that provides free lunches is especially touching because it funds students who can barely pay for their meals. The money provides a slightly better diet, and the students get a higher level of nutrients when their bodies need them most。
One can question which is the better economic choice: a large sum for a world-renowned institution or a similar sum that may benefit tens of millions of hinterland children. If you push the argument further, you will realize that there are youngsters who suffer from even worse poverty and misery. They may not be in a country you are familiar with, but the same amount of money may be able to make a greater difference to their lives than in a Chinese backwater。
However, that is just one way of calculating the worthiness of a recipient. You can also use a different gauge and see how much money is wasted in overheads or on unnecessary expenses. And you may choose a recipient that is better managed and yields the least waste in the process。
Then there is the possibility of using philanthropy as a public relations tactic - to smooth the wrinkles of business dealings or boost one's personal image. If handled deftly, such a fusion of business and non business strategies would not raise eyebrows. If Chinese businesses have an eye for the global market, why not non business affairs, such as charities? Shouldn't one expand his or her horizon to that of the whole world?
I don't want to second-guess the motives behind Pan Shiyi's decision to fund Ivy League-bound Chinese students. He has made many donation to poor children in China's inland provinces. He may see the new move as helping those on the verge of success and the schools as incubators for tomorrow's leaders. Zhang Xin, Pan's wife, says: "I want the best students to receive the best education, regardless of whether their families can fund it."
不過(guò)，這僅僅是其中一種衡量受助者價(jià)值的方法。你還可以用其他不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)計(jì)算，看看有多少錢(qián)浪費(fèi)在了雜項(xiàng)開(kāi)支或不必要的開(kāi)支上。然后，你可以選擇一個(gè)方便實(shí)施，善款最大化的援助對(duì)象。
慈善也有可能成為潤(rùn)滑公共關(guān)系的籌碼——讓商業(yè)交易變得更容易或提升個(gè)人形象。如果處理巧妙，這種商業(yè)與非商業(yè)策略的融合并不會(huì)引人側(cè)目。如果中國(guó)商人有放眼全球市場(chǎng)的洞察力，又怎會(huì)不著眼于慈善類(lèi)的非商業(yè)事務(wù)。他們難道不應(yīng)該擁有全球視野嗎?
對(duì)于潘石屹捐款常春藤名校中的中國(guó)學(xué)子一事，我不想做事后諸葛，揣測(cè)其動(dòng)機(jī)。潘先生對(duì)中國(guó)內(nèi)陸的寒門(mén)學(xué)子也做了很多捐款。他下一步要做的可能是捐助那些離成功僅一步之遙的學(xué)子和培養(yǎng)未來(lái)領(lǐng)袖的學(xué)府。潘石屹的妻子，張欣說(shuō)過(guò)：“我想讓最優(yōu)秀的學(xué)生接受最好的教育，不管他們的家庭能否負(fù)擔(dān)得起。”
