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)《中國日報》報道，近日，中國房地產(chǎn)大亨潘石屹捐助哈佛大學中的中國寒門學子一事，引發(fā)網(wǎng)上熱議不斷。
通常來說，慈善往往不會成為唇槍舌戰(zhàn)之地。但在中國，如果你把錢看得太緊，或是大筆花錢，你都會被別人緊緊盯上。就拿最近的例子來說，就連你資金的流向也可能成為大家關(guān)注的焦點。
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，同時也稱得上是位名人。當他與妻子決定向美國哈佛大學捐款1500萬美元時，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，稱潘石屹共捐了1億美元。隨后，他出面澄清，表示自己計劃設(shè)立總價值1億美元的“SOHO中國助學金”，其中的1500萬用于捐助在哈佛就讀的中國寒門學子。耶魯?shù)绕渌⒚乐麑W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)濟學家姚樹潔質(zhì)疑潘石屹的捐款動機，似乎想替很多人打抱不平：“潘石屹搞房地產(chǎn)，在中國這片土地上爆發(fā)橫財。為什么要大老遠跑去美國做慈善，他富得忘了自己的皮膚是黃的。”
其他人則認為潘石屹的捐款是為其子將來入讀波士頓名校“買門票”。這些人的原理是：潘石屹給助學金所設(shè)置的門檻是每年6.5萬元(1.5萬美元)的家庭收入，而大部分的中國中產(chǎn)階級家庭年收入絕不止這一數(shù)字。這么看來，并不是很多中國學子能達到這一要求。
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。
潘石屹不像陳光標那樣靠發(fā)展回收經(jīng)濟致富。潘涉足娛樂業(yè)，甚至還在電影《阿司匹林》中擔任男一號，他從事善行時，不會高調(diào)宣傳，比大部分的中國企業(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，而是因其在微博上對社會事件作出的評論。
原則上，潘石屹有權(quán)利決定把錢捐給什么人或是什么機構(gòu)合適。至于受助者是中國人還是外國人，與外人無關(guān)。每個人在選擇援助對象時都有自己的優(yōu)先考慮。
現(xiàn)在，大多數(shù)的中國人都能明白這一點。這要是發(fā)生在十年、二十年以前，我很確定絕大多數(shù)的公眾輿論都會是負面的，因為他們會把這種行為上綱上線到缺乏愛國主義精神�，F(xiàn)在雖然這種思想依舊存在，但已經(jīng)越來越少了，因為人們更容易區(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，中國金融家張磊向母校耶魯大學捐贈888萬美元。他要是再出名些，他就會成為人們的眾矢之的。
批評人士雖對別人的慈善選擇是瞎操心了，但他們確實對此類事件用上了一個簡單的經(jīng)濟學原理。他們推斷，對哈佛這類的學校而言，這筆錢不過是錦上添花。他們的捐贈者多如牛毛，如果把潘的捐款看成是一種投資行為，他也不會獲得最高的回報率。
普通中國人不會特意去計算哪所學校最需要捐款，但中國確實有兩句俗語恰如其分地應和了這種微觀經(jīng)濟學原理：“錦上添花”和“雪中送炭”。如果選擇后者，你會更受關(guān)注，但這種做法需要自己的獨立思考。
多數(shù)投資者，不論是專業(yè)人士還是外行人，都有從眾心理去追逐那早已是眾人爭相追捧的事物。如果你把錢捐給哈佛大學或是中國的清華[微博]大學[微博]，你并不覺得有多么令人矚目。事實上，中國頂尖大學收到的私人捐款或是公共資助都比其他學校多得多。它們好比是高等學府百花園中最耀眼的花束，向它們投擲玫瑰或花瓣時所獲得的心理滿足感很可能比有形回報來得多。
按這種標準來說，捐贈對象的國籍不是問題，問題在于誰真的急需幫助。哈佛大學可能比清華大學需要更多的預算，因此，它能比中國的常規(guī)大學得到更多的資助。按邏輯說來，最需要這種經(jīng)濟援助的，是那些供最低收入家庭就讀的貧困地區(qū)學校。
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)驗性實例看來，這種社會階層并沒有得到重視，而且需要持續(xù)強勁的資金援助。如果教育是優(yōu)良的平衡器，那么它應該給予貧困學子平等的機會，好讓他們開啟新的人生。但光有慈善，僅是杯水車薪，解決不了問題。國家必須帶頭，實施促進教育公平的各個項目。而在這點上，努力的空間還很大。
一年前，一位父親為女兒扛著課桌去學校的照片在網(wǎng)上出現(xiàn)，這讓舉國上下頗為憤慨。這難道不應該是當?shù)亟逃值呢熑�，與父母何干?只有在這些國家遺漏的貧困地區(qū)，慈善家們才能填補空缺。
現(xiàn)在有很多基層項目。其中一個提供免費午餐的項目尤為令人感動，因為它資助了那些幾乎吃不起飯的學生。這筆錢能為他們提供稍好一些的食物，也能讓他們在長身體的時候獲得更充足的營養(yǎng)。
你可以懷疑，哪種經(jīng)濟投資更為明智：是給世界知名學府捐贈巨款，還是用同樣一筆錢捐助數(shù)千萬身處腹地的孩子。如果將問題討論地更深入一些，你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)有很多年輕人過著更窮苦的生活。你或許并不清楚他們所在國家，但同樣一筆錢卻可以讓他們的生活發(fā)生翻天覆地的變化，這遠比投資在中國荒僻之地來得更有意義。
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，這僅僅是其中一種衡量受助者價值的方法。你還可以用其他不同的標準來計算，看看有多少錢浪費在了雜項開支或不必要的開支上。然后，你可以選擇一個方便實施，善款最大化的援助對象。
慈善也有可能成為潤滑公共關(guān)系的籌碼——讓商業(yè)交易變得更容易或提升個人形象。如果處理巧妙，這種商業(yè)與非商業(yè)策略的融合并不會引人側(cè)目。如果中國商人有放眼全球市場的洞察力，又怎會不著眼于慈善類的非商業(yè)事務。他們難道不應該擁有全球視野嗎?
對于潘石屹捐款常春藤名校中的中國學子一事，我不想做事后諸葛，揣測其動機。潘先生對中國內(nèi)陸的寒門學子也做了很多捐款。他下一步要做的可能是捐助那些離成功僅一步之遙的學子和培養(yǎng)未來領(lǐng)袖的學府。潘石屹的妻子，張欣說過：“我想讓最優(yōu)秀的學生接受最好的教育，不管他們的家庭能否負擔得起。”
