Why breweries should not be allowed to fund schools

 

There is a reason why there are severe restrictions or a complete ban on promoting activities such as smoking, drinking alcohol, and gambling - they have deleterious effects on the social fabric because of the harm they cause to society.

All developed countries have taken extensive steps to stop the promotion of such activities to ameliorate social ills and health hazards.

Smoking is the number one cause of preventable health disease and alcohol addiction has ripped apart families of all races.

Gambling is a severe addiction among many which brings untold harm to many families where the head of the household squanders income going up to the hill to make some money or buys sheaves of lottery tickets, squandering thousands each month.

In the long run, he loses because the odds are stacked against him.

Gambling in Malaysia is not merely recreational in nature. Many families have one or two members who have lost a lot of money in this insidious, addictive practice.

So bad is the reputation of the “sin” sector that ethical funds worldwide - and that is not restricted to Islamic funds - do not invest in these sectors and others which cause considerable environmental damage.

It is right that schools should not be allowed to receive funding from such companies.

Not least because of the effect they have on tender minds that such activities are fine, especially when donations are so public (see picture below) as in the recent example of Tiger Beer, currently much more than a storm in a beer mug.

That picture - prominently displayed in the vernacular and especially the Chinese press, social media across all languages, and now everywhere because of the controversy it has caused - has given the kind of publicity to Tiger Beer that no amount of money can buy.

In the minds of school children, the Tiger Beer brand is firmly implanted at a time when they are rather impressionable and is associated with a good thing - a donation to a school which helps them get better facilities and teachers.

Against advertising code

It is so obviously a tool that the beer company uses to circumvent advertising guidelines on alcohol and associate the brand name with a social purpose.

This is against the advertising code which prohibits the brands of the “sin” sector from being associated with any good purpose.

It is within this context that the brouhaha has to be looked at.

DAP leader Anthony Loke has unfortunately taken this up as a major issue with the cabinet when there are many other more pressing issues not addressed by the party.

There is after all a rule which prohibits the “sin” sector from contributing to schools precisely because of what I just outlined. But now there are reports that Chinese schools are exempted. Why should such an exemption be made for them? There is no valid reason.

Any resolution of the issue must ask these questions and try to answer them: Why do breweries fund schools, and Chinese schools specifically? What do they hope to gain from that? Are their reasons totally altruistic?

The obvious answer to the first question is that there are severe restrictions on advertisements and this method circumvents those, giving them good publicity for the cost of the donation, an exposure they could not get otherwise.

Plus, it is an opportunity to get brand awareness among the young and impressionable.

It also builds the brand a lot of goodwill with the Chinese, their main market in Malaysia, and where the competition is rather stiff between the two industry giants Heineken (which brews Tiger Beer) and Carlsberg.

Even if they no longer make a donation, people will remember Tiger Beer for this for a long time.

Advertising veterans still remember decades ago when the Malaysian Tobacco Company (MTC) was the dominant cigarette player in the country by far with the Benson and Hedges and 555 State Express brands.

But they lost their lead to Rothmans when there was a rumour that MTC declined to donate to Merdeka University - an MCA-sponsored private university. It was a lead they never regained.

It’s all about publicity

Is it altruism that determines whether these “sin” companies donate to schools? It is not likely to be a major factor, the main reason being circumventing advertising rules to get brand awareness and goodwill up - and they used it to great advantage here.

Because of these factors and in the larger interest of not promoting the activities that these “sin“ sector companies are involved in, funding of any school in the country by this sector should not be allowed.

Perhaps, and I emphasise “perhaps” here, a compromise might be to allow such donations only if there is absolutely no publicity or through a foundation which has no branding association with the products or services from the “sin” sector.

But there are serious practical difficulties in such a move - probably not worth the effort. - Mkini

---

P GUNASEGARAM says sensitive issues can only be resolved by cool heads - something we seriously lack, especially when everyone wants to make political capital out of the tiniest of issues.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.