Traditional charity often consists of relief and humanitarian aid work which is reactive, short-term, associated with compassion and emotion. The Vietnamese precept “Lá lành đùm lá rách” (literally “the leaf that is whole takes care of the tattered leaf”) runs in the psyche of Vietnamese people through generations. This is well-recognized whenever there is a disaster or even just in the face of individual deprivation. Back in 2020 when the devastating flood ravaged central Vietnam, the whole nation shared the pain by organizing relief trips and fundraising campaigns initiated by media agencies, organizations, and individuals.

Meanwhile, philanthropy follows commonly accepted principles among the international philanthropy community: identifying clear and stable target beneficiaries; having medium and long-term goals; aiming to contribute towards solving a social problem; running well-planned, effective programs with measurable impact; making transparent disbursement with accountability to donors. A critical requirement to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of philanthropy is building trust from the donors and beneficiaries. That is why philanthropy is called (in Vietnamese) by some development charity to distinguish it from traditional charity, called relief / humanitarian charity. A typical example of the former is The Resilient Housing Program by Song Foundation, which gets at the root of the problem with a long-term and sustainability-related plan to help people “co-exist with floods”.

Before closing, I would like to provide a short commentary on a few charity activities that have attracted public attention recently:

• Commentary
• A few thoughts on charity and philanthropy in times of hardship

Undeniably, when in severely challenging situations such as natural disasters and pandemics, Vietnamese people generally:

• Willingly contribute, share, and help out wholeheartedly in various and creative ways
• Quickly give a helping hand

This is demonstrated with three examples:

• A famous singer’s call for donations to flood victims in the central region, receiving over 170 billion VND (over 7 million USD) within a few days
• A young entrepreneur’s initiatives of “Rice ATM”, “Oxygen ATM” to help the poor and patients during the Covid-19 lockdown
• The Chairman of FPT Corporation’s decision for FPT to adopt and sponsor until graduation 1000 orphans who lost their parents due to Covid-19

Obviously, different lessons can be drawn from the three examples:



Regarding the young entrepreneur:
He effectively used his knowledge of technology and organizational skills as an entrepreneur, which resulted in contributions from many sponsors to “Rice ATM” and “Oxy ATM”. Besides, he respected the beneficiaries in the way of giving and avoided self-branding by hardly showing up close to those ATM locations.

As to the chairman of the major corporation:
The plight of orphans due to Covid-19 moved him towards the decision of mobilizing the corporation’s resources to fund the children with a long-term plan which hopes to create a strong foundation for their future.

In the case of the famous singer:
A famous artist’s call for donations on social media was quickly responded to nationwide;
That singer urgently showed up at the flooded places, gave money to the victims in person, which was praised by public opinion on social media. When hearing questions about the disbursement of 170 billion VND on her own within a very few days, the singer was reported to have a dozen flood-resilient shelters built in the central region in February, 2021;
This story raises several issues:
Is it advisable to use a personal bank account to receive a large number of donations from unknown donors?
The singer actively built her personal image when giving away money in person.
She completely disregarded professionalism, efficiency and transparency in disbursement.
Eventually, the consequences are:

• Failing to perform the proper role of an “intermediary” so as to ensure accountability to the donors;
• Failing to create the medium-term impact of such an enormous relief amount;
• Together with scandals involving other famous artists, it leaves a negative public perception of famous people doing charity.
• At the same time, it is regrettable to notice some “ugly” Vietnamese individuals who took advantage of social networks to deceive kind-hearted people by calling for donations which flowed into and stayed in their own bank accounts. This should be condemned as a shameful act, stealing from those in need.

In conclusion, I would like to leave a few comments and wishes:


For our communities (individuals, groups, and organizations), charity should not only come from compassion with emotion-based actions but also aim for effectiveness, professionalism, and transparent accountability. It would be beneficial if these actors connected with the philanthropy ecosystem by interacting more with philanthropic organizations.

At the same time, the media must take on a responsible role in building updated public awareness about the big picture of philanthropy and understanding of all aspects of charity and philanthropy. Giving is not enough, the key is sustainability and positive impact exerted by the way we give.

As regards the relevant authorities, it is necessary to find appropriate methods and mechanisms to both promote the voice of social media influencers and ensure the principles of transparency, responsibility, and effectiveness. On the other hand, the government should recognize the contribution of non-profit groups and organizations in the philanthropy ecosystem and facilitate their work, which also enhances the socialization process. Obviously, if appeals from celebrities were guided by a clearcut legal framework, the recent problems relating to transparency might not have occurred.

All in all, I think it is time to move towards a “mature” philanthropy culture.