Comment

Orphans need stability,love

Updated: 2010-05-26 11:47

Sometimes I read some very silly things in a newspaper. I read about how killers are always insane and never simply angry, how the male bra business is perking up, and recently how police were puzzled why a man was hiding in a well. Apparently, he also had mental problems.

But all were beaten by this one simple quote:

"If these children want to continue to stay in Beijing, the charity will pay for all of their life and education expenses until they are 18," said Wei Jiuming, chairperson of the China Children Charity Aid Foundation.

Let me explain the article before I point out why it was stupid - I mean silly.

This was a story about children, turned into orphans by the earthquake in Yushu, who were put on a bus to visit Beijing for sightseeing and psychological treatment.

Now, I am not saying that a nice trip to the capital does any harm to these kids. As a father, I know the power of distraction and how a positive set of memories can influence a young mind for days or weeks or even longer.

What got my goat was that these kids are aged between 2 and 8. Since when has giving children the right to decide the location of their complete young life been a responsible move?

I struggle to comprehend how the conversation would have gone. Perhaps Wei, the charity chairperson, would ask: "Did you have a good time here today?"

In response, 2-year-old Sumchung Pamo might offer up a smile that could be construed as a strong desire to leave her hometownland.

I also don't think even the top range of this group - 8-year-old Lhatso Chozin - is old enough to decide her future.

At this point, it's worth noting what kind of future is on offer. This is not a tossup choice between which university has the best program, or which community gives bang for buck in terms of floor space. This is deciding whether to spend a life in a Qinghai orphanage or a Beijing orphanage.

Wouldn't the better option for all concerned be to keep these kids with near to any distant relatives they might have, or invest major energy into finding them a new family?

Naturally, this second option does offer up the question of why these particular orphaned kids are more needy than those in the rest of the country, but since they are the only ones invited on the sightseeing trip, it's hard to argue that the situation has been handled fairly so far.

And why are these kids in Beijing? Doesn't Qinghai have a psychological counseling center? Forgive me if I am wrong, but I would assume catering to the mental state of that troubled area's residents would be big business.

It is this writer's opinion that this is little more than a publicity act. Adding a charity's name to the deed does not convince me it is a selfless act; charities survive on donations and for this, they need publicity.

I remember watching an episode of Friends in which Joey tells Phoebe there is no such thing as a selfless act, an episode based on the theories of Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant. Despite Phoebe's attempts, she fails to prove that any act, no matter how kind, has not been conducted without a hidden agenda or result.

Which brings me back to the words of Wei Jiuming. When Wei said that these children could determine their future, little attention was paid to the practicality of the statement. Instead, for whatever reason, an irresponsible promise was made that I suspect, was not unselfish.

So, finally, here's my point - it's not enough to just want to help. This charity needs to realize that children need stability as well as love, especially now they lack a parental guide through times of uncertainty and danger. The solution is not to pass them off to others, so please do your job and take responsibility.