Needing To Show Off

by M. Bakri Musa

The per-capita income of Malaysia’s Klang Valley is a mere fraction that of America’s Silicon Valley, but one would not know that from visiting their respective shopping malls.

At any time there are more (in absolute as well as relative numbers) Mercedes Benzes and other late model luxury cars in the parking lot of the Mega Mall in Klang Valley than at Stanford Shopping Center. And judging from the crowd, the purveyors of luxury goods at Mega Mall do a roaring business compared to their counterparts at the Stanford Mall.

I also see more gold Rolexes on brown wrists than on white ones. I must admit that the gold color looks good against a brown background!

Despite the residuum of the dotcom bust, as well as the current economic crisis, Silicon Valley still has one of the highest per capita incomes in America, which in turn is one of the highest per-capita income countries. Yet for the most part Americans lack the compulsion to show off their wealth.

This is not unique to Americans. The Norwegians also have a high per-capita income, and their sovereign fund is one of the largest in the world. Norway is also the Saudi Arabia of the North Sea. Unlike in Riyadh however, the most popular cars on the streets of Oslo are those fuel-stingy hybrid models instead of the gas guzzling Cadillacs that are the favorites with the Arabs.

To be fair to Malaysians, General Motors sells more luxury models in China than elsewhere. Gucci and Louis Vuitton brands are top sellers in China, and Beijing has more gated communities than any other major capitals. Members of the Chinese Politburo and top generals have special license plates to go with their luxury sedans. That enables them to park their cars anywhere and to ignore traffic (and also presumably, other) rules with impunity.

In Malaysia, UMNO Supreme Council members too are doing the same. I suppose this was what Dr. Mahathir meant when he urged Malays to emulate the Chinese!

Conspicuous Consumption

In his 1889 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class, the American economist and social critic Thorstein Veblen coined the phrase “conspicuous consumption” to describe the propensity of the rich towards opulent displays of their wealth.

It was not surprising that the excesses of the “robber barons” of the Gilded Age would offend the sensibilities of a frugal, Mid-Western Lutheran of Norwegian descent. It was after all a time of undreamed wealth creation, what with the confluence of the Industrial Revolution and the opening of the American heartland, together with the availability of cheap immigrant labor.

Such ostentations were needed so members of the “gentlemanly” or leisure class could differentiate themselves from the peons of the working class. As Veblen noted, the need for such differentiations is seen in all societies and at all times, save perhaps of the ancient hunter-gatherers.

The native Indians of the American Northwest had their potlatch ceremonies where they gathered to exchange lavish gifts. The lavishness and associated waste offended the sensibilities of those earlier missionaries such that they lobbied their government to ban such practices. How noble of those missionaries to save those natives from their “destructive” culture!

Across the Pacific, it was only recently that the Chinese gave up the practice of tightly wrapping the feet of their infant daughters in order to increase their desirability as future brides. After all, only the rich could afford to have daughters with dainty feet; huge feet belong to peasant women so they could work the rice fields better. Thus, dainty feet are anatomic manifestations of conspicuous consumption, the need to show off that you are not of the working class.

In the rest of Asia, Malaysia included, huge weddings and exorbitant dowries are also variants of this potlatch mentality.

Malaysian Philanthropy In Its Infancy

Styles, whether sartorial or social, do change. What were once luxuries and the exclusive preserve of the wealthy – cars, washing machines, and hot water on demand – are now basic necessities even for those on public assistance. Today young professionals just starting out can afford Porsches, albeit through generous bank loans.

Ostentatious lifestyles and visible luxuries are no longer indicators of class differences. Worse, in Malaysia if you were to drive a late model higher-end Mercedes, you could be mistaken for a taxi driver!

You could “advance” by acquiring a private jet, but then you would have to invest time and effort in acquiring your pilot’s license, as with John Travolta. Besides, the “showing off” value of and opportunities from a Gulfstream are limited; nobody would notice you except for the brief time when you are taxiing at the local airport. The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets have access to private jets but through their corporations. Meaning, their cost is partly born by taxpayers as it would be tax deductible.

Among the rich in America and much of the developed world today there is a definite reversal of Veblen’s old “conspicuous consumption.” The new chic is “inconspicuous consumption.”

Warren Buffet lives in the same modest suburban home in Omaha that he has had for the past forty years even though he could afford a Gates-like lakeside mansion. Instead Buffet, like Gates, diverted his vast fortunes to philanthropy, emulating the generosities of the “robber barons” of yore.

To be sure, conspicuous consumption is still rampant in America, but only among the rich of visible minority groups, specifically Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Before we resort to racial and cultural caricaturing to explain such phenomenon, consider this. Such conspicuous consumptions are still prevalent among Whites, but only those from traditionally poor areas like the South. For the same income level, rich Whites from Mississippi spend more on visible luxuries than those from Massachusetts. Meaning, rich Southern Whites behave like rich minorities.

What governs social behaviors has more to do with your social reference groups than with your race or culture. Rich southern Whites, like rich Blacks, Hispanics and Asians feel the need to show off their wealth in order to differentiate or prove that they have “escaped” from their poorer peers.

When your peers are the likes of Gates and Buffet, individuals unimpressed with visible luxuries, you would then spend your wealth to pursue your passion, not to impress others. You are thus more likely to endow a professorship at your alma mater, fund your doctor’s medical research, buy original paintings, or grow premium varietals for your boutique winery.

Likewise, the invitation list for your daughter’s wedding would be short, to include only the couple’s best friends and closest family members. The celebration too would be on a scale the very opposite of what those rupee millionaires of Mumbai would put on for their daughters. I viewed the video of a recent society wedding in Mumbai; it made the one Windsor Castle hosted for Charles and Diana looked stingy.

Malaysia is still Third World. Its many millionaires including the sultans are only a generation away from the privations of the kampong. Thus it is not surprising that rich Malaysians would behave like rich American Blacks or Southern Whites. By displaying their luxury trinkets, these rich Malaysians hope to bury their plebian past. More importantly, they still feel the need to differentiate themselves from the poor masses. The most recent and obscene example was the late Zakaria Mat Deros building his opulent mansion amidst the urban squalor of Klang’s Malay village.

With continued development, and with average Malaysians becoming more affluent, we could expect this conspicuous consumption to wither. At least I hope so. Such profligate displays of wealth offend our religious as well as social sensibilities.

We are already seeing glimpses of this trend. Halim Saad, the poster boy of the New Economic Policy, may have been grounded somewhat from his earlier highflying days of pre-1997 economic crisis, nonetheless he has endowed through his Saad Foundation a superb residential school in Malacca that is already besting the venerable Malay College.

Tun Daim Zainuddin, another prince of the NEP and a former Finance Minister, endowed the Pok Rafeah Chair in International Studies at Universiti Kebangsaan in honor of his mother. Another former cabinet minister, Zaid Ibrahim, was recently named one of Asia’s 48 “Heroes of Philanthropy,” together with Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, Leonard Jugah and Hishamudin Ubaidulla.

It is heartening that Malaysia has four such philanthropists, the same number as China, India and Japan, countries with far greater economies and populations. I also look forward to the day when the parking lots of Malaysian shopping malls would be filled with fuel-efficient cars, and when cars would be viewed purely as a means of transportation. That would greatly reduce the congestion on our roads and the pollution of our air.

  1. #1 by Godfather on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 2:00 pm

    Oh no, Bakri, you’ve opened the door for One Who Really Needs to Show Off on this blog !!

  2. #2 by Godfather on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 2:22 pm

    On a more serious note, Bakri, I am disappointed that you name Halim Saad and Daim as notable philantropists from Bolehland. You should know that Halim ran all of his companies into the ground, taking down so many people who bought into his listed vehicles. These companies have had to be nationalised with taxpayers’ money. Daim took so much out of the country that only Dr M knows the true extent, and even today, the old fox refuses to discuss the pillaging of the chicken coop during his tenure. Go to Africa and see the banks that Daim bought. Go to Johor and Kedah and see the land banks which he amassed. Go discuss with Tajuddin Ramli what buyback agreement he had with Daim over the MAS controlling block of shares.

    Nah, idolising these people is a true sign of ignorance. Future generations cannot be taught that if you steal RM 2 billion from the country and then bequeath RM500 to a charity that bears your name qualifies you to be a true philantropist.

  3. #3 by ch on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 3:00 pm

    Dear All,

    A report made recently by Citibank revealed that only 39% Malaysians actually save money on a regular monthly basis. The report commented further that Malaysians will less likely to survive through this on-going financial turmoil should they suddenly lose their jobs. The figure of non-saving Malaysians is touching 60% and this include during good, moderate and bad times. Interestingly, out of the 39%, 48% of them would actually try to set aside some money for savings. Old grandma tales would have told us that savings is a habit cultured during our younger days. Many families in the olden days would beat their children if they are caught spending lavishly or careless with their spendings. Children of today are less likely to be beaten by their parents should they are less careful with their spendings. Similarly, Malaysians are in fact encouraged to spend by our government. The mini budget will among other things, feature a special deal for owners of old cars above 15 years as a way to stimulate and increase sales for the much affected auto industry. So the government has somewhat failed to inculcate the important habit of savings among Malaysians. It is also unfortunate to note that planning for retirement is a matter that is not on the priority list of the Malaysian government. There are a few reasons for the lack of of concern. One of the majors is the high percentage of civil servants in Malaysia and the pension scheme that goes with it. The Malays fight to be employed by the government which gives them a craddle to grave mentality. Then there are the non-Malays who still hold on to the philosophy that their kids will grow up to support their parents. Hence less saving for their retirement and their investments is in the kids through education and etc. Also we have the government who adopts the populist approach to always find reasons to “return” the EPF savings to the members. Many objectives are achieved by doing so- makes people happy as most want to cash out their EPF savings sooner (at 55) rather than later, lesser work and burden on EPF Board as otherwise they have to work very hard to achieve a dividend rate that is higher than what we get from the financial instituitions. Recently F&N is expected to lose up to RM420 million in year 2010 on revenue after Coca Cola terminated its franchaise. The F&N episode demonstrates once again the peril being dependent on others for one’s own future. Not to rely on artificial clutches. The same applies to the affirmative programme adopted by the Malaysian government.

    If am not wrong, EPF had once came out with a report that a huge chunk of their members do not have savings that could last beyond three years after retirement. Sadly, the government has not done much to address this concern. On the other hand, the Singapore government saw the same thing and had taken the following measures:-

    1) Enacting legislations that encourage employers to retain employees till age of 62 and eventually 65.

    2) Enacting legislations that there is a minimum sum , currently at S$103,000 which all CPF members had to set aside on reaching the age of 55. They will create a retirement account with this money (which gets a proportionately higher interest rate) which will be disbursed to retiring CPF members on a monthly basis over 20 years, upon members reaching the age of 62. Current estimate is that members would receive S$500 per month or a compounded 5.82% annually for the next 20 years i.e. till the member reaches the age of 82. Of course if they are to pass away prematurely before the age of 82, the money that is not disbursed will go back to his or her beneficiary/ies. Of course there are certain members that may not have such sum of money in the CPF. For these members, the Singapore government is prepared to monetise the value of their homes through reverse mortgage, etc, etc.

    3) The Sing government has three other schemes through CPF to help the elderly manage their future medical expenses, the Medishield that limits the maximum liability of the patient at S$3,000 per major operation. The Eldershield insurance that pays out for 5 years a monthly sum of some S$350 upon the members becoming permanents disabled and a Medisave program that force members to set aside a portion of their monthly CPF savings for use against medical expenses that incurred during major operation.

    The objectives of the above schemes adopted by the Singapore government are such that most Singaporeans upon reaching the age of 62 should be able to enjoy a lifestyle that is above the poverty line. Fortunately or unfortunately, we do not have such nanny government in Malaysia. But am sure we don’t want to see our streets littered with older Malaysians begging for a simple meal from other affordable Malaysians by year 2020. The year we will proudly acclaimed to be a developed nation.

  4. #4 by Jeffrey on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 3:54 pm

    Dr M. Bakri Musa concludes “Thus, dainty feet are anatomic manifestations of conspicuous consumption, the need to show off that you are not of the working class.”

    Conspicuous consumption? No lah Dr Bakri.

    “Dainty feet” or ‘Lily feet’ – the bound feet – dressed in silk slippers called Lotus Shoes is (by present standards) a bizarre and cruel method that in olden times was thought helpful to make a woman look more desirable.

    You take off the shoe/socks and the disfigured and crippled feet look groteque – reminescent of some unhealed wound in the hoof of a horse. Yet when bound, it is supposed to be symbol of erotism.

    It is the law of physics, something smaller like a 3 or 4 inch feet would not hold the upright body mass as stably as (say) a normal 6 to 8 inch feet which in turn made the body mass jiggled and the buttocks (considered erotic) wiggled at the same time when they moved! :)

    Today (luckily) feet are culturally not required to be bound.

    We only have closely “bound” minds with a mouth to match. It is self inflicted.

  5. #5 by trublumsian on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 4:49 pm

    isn’t showing off an asian thing? bakri spoke of the philanthropic and earth-loving folks scattered across the san francisco bay area (aka silicon valley) and indeed the region is as progressive as it has been since the day of flower power and human rights. asians in the valley r prone to drive hybrids just as much as their white neighbors n co-workers, but a handful asians will not tell you they do it because it makes them look good, whatever that is.

  6. #6 by boh-liao on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 6:16 pm

    We are a strange country.

    Yes, we do have super super rich individuals here. How not to, when some of them made easy money from the rakyat and system even when they were sleeping?

    However, many of these super super rich individuals pay very little tax and prefer to be faceless. They got their wealth through the big C – corrption and cronyism.

    Just look around us and we can see with our own eyes individuals with lifestyle that is way way beyond the income of their regular jobs. My neighbours are the best examples – one of them is an officer with the leading shipping line company of Malaysia. He has two wives, two large families of multiple kids, don’t know how many houses, at least 5 expensive luxurious imported cars/SUVs (no, no, too rich to wish to own our national cars – jatuh standard lah – hence, must be imported cars), etc. Certainly a shining success story of the NEP. At the right place at the right time with duit flowing into his pockets from all directions.

    Will these people be philanthropists? Doubt so.

    Even graduates of local public universities. Will they, as alumni, donate to their alma mater? Don’t think so – because many of them did not feel they were treated fairly, for one reason or another, while they were there.

    So, we have a lose-lose situation. So sad and strange!

  7. #7 by boh-liao on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 6:34 pm

    Anyway, many of the giants of our businesses, especially those which regularly won the BN government’s contracts, are always ever ready (whether being arm-twisted or doing it voluntarily) to donate to social projects initiated by Umnoputras.

    Haven’t we all seen photos of various smiling Tun’s, Tan Sri’s, Dato’ Seri’s, Dato’s, etc lining up with large mock cheques in their hands and waiting for their turns to give the cheques to some VVIPs, like the wife of PM or the wife of DPM? Are they true philanthropists or forced to become philanthropists in exchange for their rights to win the contracts of BN mega projects?

    OK lah, hugh sum masuk one pocket, a little out from the other pocket for the privilege to be harumkan as philanthropists. Can do.

  8. #8 by Ramesh Laxman on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 8:49 pm

    What is the difference between a developed country and a developing country. In the developed country the governments are rich while the citizens have enough wealth to fight for a better life. In the developing countries5-10% of the people are are rich while the government is just one or two months away from bankruptcy and have to get foreign assistance and suffer the definition of aid by the developed countries-money taken from the poor people of rich countries and given to the rich people of poor couintries.

    Developement means nothing if there is meaningful disrtibution of wealth. The Us today has learnt this the hard way when CEO pay is 400 times more than the average worker. Free market and yes, greed is good but once you allow the fox to guard the chickens the fox will eat the chicken during the seven lean years. Then the fox will come to government with the begging bowl and the government will give the fox more money because the fox is too big to fail. But what does the fox do instead of breeding new chicken and eating them it takes the easy way out by dining at KFC while wearing its Rolex watch and driving its fancy car.

  9. #9 by jules on Monday, 23 February 2009 - 11:30 pm

    Privatising profits and socialising losses,

    yes, we are all philanthropists in some ways…..

  10. #10 by juno on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 - 2:32 pm

    This website challenges the PDRM to expose the editor of Berita Harian. Umno’s network of deceit!

  11. #11 by swipenter on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 - 10:39 pm

    This need to show off are usually confined to the new money class who made it by hard work or not so hard work and also by our alongs and pimps. The old money class usually like to show their wealth by much subtle means such as good manners and good upbringing and style and not through loud fashion and accessories.

    It is not appropriate to compare Gates and Buffet with Diam, Saad and Syed Mokthar and maybe with the exception of Said Ibrahim. Gates and Buffet made it by themselves and our four made through cronyism and even you know what by means. Taking so much from the masses and giving back a pittance to masses and you call that charity?

  12. #12 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 8:23 am

    Likely there is no person on earth who does not show off or has never showed off!

    It is a question of what is shown off; a question why the need to show off and a question of its consequences, positive or negative to others!

    We have to make some generalisations here. As Bakri says, many Asians would show off wealth and symbols thereof. Hence Rolexes, luxury cars, houses or designer brands.

    In Auckland for example many don’t show off these. However because yatching is a popular sport and pastime they show off their yatchs: even their children have “mini” yatchs. Some show off their wives – they go for celebrity/model wives – and in archaic times in certain cultures the number of wives in the harem! Most would their children, how well they do in studies, where they study or what important and high earning work they do. Warren Buffet may live in the same modest suburban home in Omaha and drive oldsmobile by GM but he still like to show off on how astute his investment strategies are to build shareholder values via Berkshire Hathaway beating Singapore’s Temasek – and maybe even competing with Bill Gates in the race of philantrophy. Just like many others who don’t show off wealth may show off their talents and work that may or may not bring in the financial lollies!

    So it is not a question of just showing off but a question of showing off what…and why.

    The “why” part is little complex. Some say showing off is a symptom of inferiority, low self-esteem, and maybe lack of love and its opposite – humility – a sign of confidence. For all we know, for some, showing off is a symptom of superiority complex resulting from confidence or over confidence from repeated successes in areas of personal achievement or an excess of love! Matters get complicated because some even make it a habit to show off their habitual humility!

    Whether showing off in whatever forms is good or bad is a measure on the part of others so impacted. Philantrophy is good, they would judge, either because we are taught that it is good in the abstract – since it benefits the needy – or it benefits them directly. There are also practical self survival concerns. In crime laden society like ours, an ostentatious display of wealth and conspicuous consumption is an open invitation and attraction to be a victim of crime. Or the IRD. In other cases more business opportunities as those that bring them to you sometimes do so thinking that you have the wealth to make use of them.

    Loud boasting is ascribed a negative quality esopecially when it is not backed by substance or ostentatious display of wealth rubs us the wrong way either because it makes those of us who have no wealth envious or those of us who have wealth wonder why we are upstaged by some show off who has less!

    So often the neurotic propensity of others to show off by proofs of superority in whatever manifestations rubs us in wrong way precisely because it activates our own neuoratic feelings of inferiority or constitutes an effrontery to our own feelings of superiority, whether or not overtly expressed.

    End of the day, one can take the view that there there is nothing laudable in showing off as there is nothing laudable in us being negatively affected by it. Or we can take the other position – to each his own – that there is nothing wrong with showing off – an ordinary human trait – which if we have bit more wisdom, we would also not be affected whether negatively or positively by it.

  13. #13 by waterfrontcoolie on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 10:20 am

    I met a Norwegian who told me that the revenues from the oil are being kept for investment so that they would have enough when they actually run out of such easy source of income in the future. And to our neigbour who has no such blessings, they save and invest like ‘mad’. for a raining day such as now!
    In Malaysia, the leaders just plan for their OWN and Families’ retirement. I was told that the JPJ list on car ownership is listed under ISA??? Why the secret? Let’s see those flashy car owners, just their names, no addresses. The gap is growing and the bottom 20% is seeing red especially with the current downturn.
    We used to see a red Misitbushi GTO in town a few years ago, no road tax disc, just a note indicating the owner’s address at 10. Downing Street. For the love of Raayat!!
    The thing that tickled many of us, is the majority of the population is oblivious to such abuses!! Orang Sendiri!!1

  14. #14 by waterfrontcoolie on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 10:29 am

    Jeffrey, I told many of my Chinese businessmen that the problem with them is their reluctance to ‘circulate their monies!. they keep on saving and build up their assets when others keep on ‘circulating their incomes’ by whatever means. Hence, the 30% quota will never be achieved any time, so long that they do not spend as fast as the other communities!!
    This is what TDM said about money circulation which the Americans, the British, most of the Africans and hwo else are doing!! Maybe the world is slowly but surely coming to a deadlock in every aspect of our so-called modern life-style!

  15. #15 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 11:06 am

    I don’t see anything wrong with saving behavior of Chinese businessmen. They could show off Mercedes Benz(es), Rolexes and mistresses and yet save during good (economic boom) times, in preparation of economic bad times like now, when they could use their savings to accumulated to spend on cheap assets to make more wealth when they appreciate in the next cycle of boom time comes again. What’s so wrong about that?

    Even Malays say “Sedikit-sedikit lama-lama jadi bukit (A lit bit saved everyday will accumulate to a huge amount someday) to the young.

    Nothing wrong with saving – or having discipline to save – which is not the same as not knowing to spend. It is knowing when and what to spend on that counts!

    Others should emulate this behaviour to equalise to attain 30% quota than expect the Chinese to indulge in conspicuous consumption, lose their savings to become poorer to equalize.

    To spend especially on future expected income that may not come – to spend on borrowings whether from credit cards or bank loans – in order to flash a luxury car (depreciating) or a big mansion with no sufficient yield to service installment repayment leading to cash flow problems and force sale by the mortgagee – I am sure you don’t, and shouldn’t think that that’s the right way!

  16. #16 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 11:36 am

    Ok lah everybody wants to “show off” – (say) that’s human nature – and to show off (say) the proper subject mater for showing off is display of wealth (simply) because that’s one thing majority covet and desire.

    When one wants to display wealth, do it with real wealth, ie wear the hat only if it fits : for that you have to work hard and smart and in spending, prudent….One then can be cavalier if you spend on your own money due to your own hard and smart work/labour rather than on the back and toils of others due to political patronage.

    The problem is where one does not depend on one’s own efforts but on political patronage for wealth creation, then one would support a certain political party identified with espousing political favours and patronage and in no time the political party will be filled throughout rank and file with politicians whose first entry point into politics and the second reason for staying and ascending the political heirarchy is basically economic motivation….

    Politics as a profession can claim honour – and the country will be governed well – only if politicians’ motivations of entering into politics is political, by my restricted defination I mean political motivations to wield power for proper governance, accountability and with competence to bring properity and happiness to as many of the citizens as possible in the country.

    But if entry to and ascendency in politics is based on economic motivations, then patronage and soon corruption of the one in charge will be the order of the day and standards of political governance will deteriorate until the country becomes poorer and poorer going the Zimbabwe way, to the detriment of all except those otherwise wise enough to save and having financial mobility to relocate to other greener pastures….

  17. #17 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 3:19 pm

    I saw a quote a little while ago that I’ve been saving up:

    “Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.” – John Maynard Keynes

    Gates didn’t entirely ‘make it by himself’. Microsoft has been fined billions of dollars by the European Commission. That money belonged to other organisations and individuals in the IT industry who were at least as capable as Gates, but were locked out by his company’s anti-competitive practices. If UMNO are spending MegaRinggits in Perak now, it’s not philanthropy – even if they, like Gates, protest that it’s ‘just good business’!

  18. #18 by zorgen on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 2:51 pm

    Agree with Godfather that [Future generations cannot be taught that if you steal RM 2 billion from the country and then bequeath RM500 to a charity that bears your name qualifies you to be a true philantropist.]

    Just pick any Chinese school in Malaysia, there is none which is never getting donation from the public (mainly Chinese community). I am not too sure about the Tamil school. In Penang, there were so many great men that donated money and lands to build and sustain the operations of hospitals (e.g. Lam Hwa Ee, Loh Guan Lye etc), schools (mainly chinese schools which I aware of), temples and old folk homes (e.g. Jubilee). These are from the donation from the public and businessman that earn the money the clean way and generously donate it out. And these people should be more eligible to be named as Philantropist than those that sucking the bloody money from the people and pretend to be generious to donate it out. If I were always awarded with multi-billions project by the federal government, I would not mind to donate millions back to my community.

You must be logged in to post a comment.