Tiger Beer’s clarification that it does not make any donations to Chinese schools but presents local artistes for charity concerts raises questions anew over how the entire donation process takes place.
If that is true, why don’t schools get clearly non-prohibited companies to pay for the cost of “presenting local artistes”?
There are probably hundreds of thousands of small, medium, and large companies who would be more than happy to make contributions. Why must they be mostly the exclusive preserve of beer companies?
Further, by presumably covering the costs of artistes for the charity concert which raises funds for the school, a cost which would have to be paid by the school otherwise, isn’t Tiger Beer making a contribution to the schools which otherwise would have to stump out that amount? It certainly is.
On top of that, simply footing expenses for the procurement of artistes for the charity concert gives it huge publicity. Its recognisable logo is prominently displayed at the fundraiser and its products are sold at the concerts.
Let’s look at the Tiger Beer statement. Malaysiakini reported: “In a statement today (July 25), the brewery company clarified that its role in the Chinese Education Charity Concert (CECC) organised by a Chinese school in Sepang, Selangor was solely in presenting local performing artistes for the event.
“To date, it said, over RM413 million has been raised by the local communities through the CECC platform (over 30 years), without any donations from its beer brand to the schools.”
That’s admirable. But how much did it actually spend on “presenting local performing artistes” for the charity concerts?
Sidestepping ministry guidelines
Logically and on an accounting basis, that must be taken as its donation to the schools because it is helping to cover the cost of the event which raises the money for the school.
Tiger Beer said further in its statement: “Our communications and engagements are kept at the level of the school’s Parent-Teacher Association and the board members that run the schools.
“The CECC has been in existence for 30 years. Its mission is to be a platform for the local communities to help raise funds for upgrading Chinese school facilities.
“The organisers have always been mindful in ensuring that all programmes and activities organised are respectful of religious, and cultural sensitivities and compliant with the local regulations.”
By putting effective donations through third parties such as the CECC and the Parent-Teacher Association, Tiger Beer is simply using them to make the donations, trying to circumvent the Education Ministry’s clear regulation on this.
The regulation specifies that contributions should not be accepted for proceeds from gambling, tobacco, alcohol, drugs and the like. Surely that must include contributions for reducing costs which effectively come from these very sources.
Publicity of the best kind
Finally, what did Tiger Beer get out of this generous act of theirs? Publicity, which is even better than advertising in getting public goodwill and buy-in. Look at the picture and how the word Tiger features prominently on it.
One can be forgiven for thinking that the entire donation of over RM3 million came from Tiger itself. Now look at the Tiger Beer logo below taken from its website. Can there be any doubt that they are one and the same?
Tiger Beer got considerable brand awareness and publicity of the best kind - through news about their “philanthropic” activities. And it costs very little to obtain artistes for a fundraising concert.
Although these events are not regarded as advertisements and are considered news, the way they are positioned and marketed makes them promotional material which implies some form of advertising - the cost being that of getting artistes for the charity concerts.
If such methods are being used to raise funds for assisted Chinese schools, the natural question that arises is why not use less controversial companies?
Many of them would love to contribute a few thousand ringgit to get artistes to promote their brand and to display their products at the charity event.
Selangor and Kuala Lumpur United Chinese School Committees’ Association secretary-general Low Chee Chong told Malaysiakini beer was sold at the performance for guests to purchase on-site, with the school receiving the profits from the sales.
He added that different organisers have their profit-sharing rules. For example, the school may receive a percentage of the sales or the school is allowed to keep any excess once the cost of the beer is recouped.
Other companies besides breweries who can do such things could be banks, insurance companies, car companies, those selling food, electronic companies, TVs, fridges and other white goods, employment agencies, tour operators, manufacturers, and many, many more. Why this obsession with beer companies?
The ministry’s guidelines for donation also state that they should abide by prevailing government regulations and policies.
One of the government’s many policies is to discourage alcohol consumption among the public because of its deleterious effects on the public if consumed in excess, and minors’ susceptibility to any kind of promotion.
Allowing such positive publicity and promotion for a beer company in a school is certainly not in line with that policy.
The Education Ministry’s guidelines for accepting donations state they should account for religious and racial sensitivities and the ministry’s image.
Malaysiakini reported that in the case of the recent concert, Deputy Housing and Local Government Minister and Sepang MP Aiman Athirah Sabu announced an RM100,000 donation during the event while Sungai Pelek assemblyperson Lwi Kian Keong pledged RM10,000.
Lwi, a DAP lawmaker, told Malaysiakini they did not know beforehand that a beer company was a strategic event partner and added that he felt they were put on the spot and left to suffer the consequences.
He said: “The school has not come forward to say, ‘This dinner was organised by us, don’t blame it on the MP’. On the night of the event, when the donations were announced and the mock cheques were handed over, Aiman and I were called on stage.
“It was only when we were on stage that we learned that the mock cheque they brought out had a Tiger Beer logo. Before that, Aiman and I didn’t know.”
The deputy minister in the meantime apologised for her presence at the event.
As a member of Amanah, a progressive Islamist party within the Pakatan Harapan coalition, it is understandable she would have been upset at attending an event where the main brand prominently displayed was that of a beer company.
Every Malaysian knows that alcohol consumption is prohibited in Islam. It is difficult to understand how a Muslim deputy minister from an Islamist party was put in a predicament by such an insensitive act of the organisers.
This needless brouhaha can be easily settled when viewed from the point of view of rules and regulations and the policies promoted. It is right that the ministry’s guidelines be kept intact but it should be enforced fairly without fear or favour and any loopholes should be closed off.
Obviously, there were loopholes used in the last 30 years, or were all eyes closed during those years? - Mkini
P GUNASEGARAM says clarity is served by recognising that rules are there to be enforced and policies to be followed - if they are not going to be, they should be removed.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.