Occupy Central in Hong Kong

It's been a tumultuous few weeks in Hong Kong. One of my best friends is currently on exchange at Hong Kong University, and she tells me that every day there are students skipping class to take part in their own Occupy Central protest on university grounds. Classes have diminished in size, while public spaces, mostly centred around Admiralty, have ballooned with impassioned truants.

Here's a photo she sent me:

Who knows what will happen a week from now - whether it's going to escalate or die down - but it has been fascinating watching the responses of my peers to Occupy Central. Over this past weekend, a number of my mother's colleagues staged a peaceful demonstration outside the Victorian State Library, holding placards emblazoned with democratic slogans and draped with yellow ribbon. A man whom I personally know was said to have orchestrated the event, and later on in the day, I saw a Facebook video of him making a rousing speech to at least a hundred others about how overseas Hong Kongers must show their support and pride for those at 'home'.

"Later, if someone comes up to make a speech - film it, put it online and let everyone know that the Hong Kong people of Melbourne are not just sitting here doing nothing, but that we also have a voice. We will let the world know, the people in Hong Kong know, that we are actively supporting democratic Hong Kong!" 

Video accessible here:

Post by Dolp Dolp Lau.

Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong

Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend -- not for what they get done. Instead of equating frugality with morality, he asks us to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments (even if that comes with big expenses). In this bold talk, he says: Let's change the way we think about changing the world.

Everything the donating public has been taught about giving is dysfunctional, says AIDS Ride founder Dan Pallotta. He aims to transform the way society thinks about charity and giving and change.

---------------

My thoughts:

Everyone wants to own their own home, have their own car, support their family and be able to afford all the nice perks of life that would make living a little more enjoyable - a luxury sedan, an expensive watch, some designer goodies, a trip to Paris, a night out with friends at Nobu.  It's why people work so damn hard.  And I'm assuming that most of us have similar material aspirations.  If we earn enough money, why not lavish ourselves once in a while?  

But what if you're someone who's also really passionate about charity; someone smart and innovative and able to provide appropriate technical advice on projects?  What if you want to work for an institution like WWF, World Vision (or a smaller institution) and want to take a direct part in project development and research?

Well, forget about that European sports car with the orgasmic obsidian paint you've been saving up for.  Working for a NPO may be morally rewarding but it means you will face a lifetime of socio-economic limitations - what you can do with the money you earn is strictly governed by moral standards attributed by society to those working in the non-profit sector.  And if you breach those standards for even the tiniest exhibition of using your own finances for personal pleasure (and not for saving African kids), then you're an uber demonic capitalist/satan/father of all lies.

You want to drive a luxury Audi A8 instead of a fugly green Toyota Prius?  Well NO.  Because everyone will be like "you could have given that money to starving Ethiopian families man."

You want a nice Hugo Boss suit tailored to fit your absolutely ripped body instead of a Target t-shirt and op shop jeans?  Well NO.  Could've sponsored a hundred kids from World Vision.

You want the newest generation iPod?  Well NO.  Could've fed a bunch of homeless people for a week.

You see the problem here?  Where does it stop?  What extent of frugality must we exhibit to show that we are dedicated to our charitable cause?  

So I guess, either you work for a NP organisation and sacrifice all the nice perks you would and could have bought (remember that it is NORMAL to want these things), or live like an ascetic so you don't face the backlash that comes with working for a NPO but also wanting to buy the newest LV bag/Louboutin shoes.

I know there are people who would be outraged at this idea - "if you're TRULY passionate about helping people and working for charity, then you shouldn't give a shit about money and material things because that's not what's important.  Saving lives is more important.  Feeding hungry mouths is more important.  Fuck your Audi."

But if you REALLY think about it, why is that so wrong?  What in the world is so wrong with wanting to enjoy your own life while helping the needy at the same time?  I don't see how a love for fast cars or high tier fashion should be considered mutually exclusive to a love for helping those in need.  

As long as you're making a difference and doing so effectively - fulfilling your personal material aspirations with the money that you earn (legitimately) should be none of anyone else's freakin' business.  So please shut up, purist sanctimonious vegan dread-locked hippies.  I mean, I don't see you guys giving upper east side philanthropists shit for driving around in Aston Martins.  Ya know why?  Cos these people (and yes, they are people) are some of the most important agents of change in the NP sector as well as the profit sector.  Sure, they buy lots of things they don't really need but if they've worked hard for the money, why shouldn't they?  They're still giving a fairly big amount of money back to charity and that's what counts.  They're making a bigger difference than most people.  

Obviously, I'm not going to extremes and saying that Tim Costello (CEO of World Vision) should be buying three Maseratis if he really wanted to.  But (I'm going to segue into a second point now) it's just this screwed up notion that NP workers should be receiving the barest minimum in pay since anything above that is considered a gross perversion of their job, is something that really irks me.  It also makes a lot of young people second question their ability to make a decent living out of the NP sector.  This isn't selfishness or some sort of fucked up Gen Y/Gen Z characteristic, it's realism.  It's pragmatism.  It's not wanting to be underpaid for overtime.  It's whether we can get what we deserve for the effort we put in.  Whether we have agency to exert personal freedom in the structure we've been confined to.

If not, people will start looking for different paths that are both personally rewarding AND helping starving kids is in developing countries.

And people wonder why there aren't more top graduates going to the NP sector instead of the profit sector/becoming investment bankers at Goldman Sachs lul.

As Dan Pallotta said, why not just go into the profit sector and earn tonnes of $$ and then give part of that back to charity?  Then I have some more leeway to buy all the crap I want while promoting a humanitarian agenda - WIN WIN.  I may even be able to make a greater contribution because I'm able to take more risks with my money and invest it in specific projects that no medical institution or government would sponsor, either because they have more pressing priorities or because they only want to work on issues that affect the majority and not the minority.    

Finally, that entrenched view that NP organisations should strip overhead to a minimum as well ....  ugh.  UGH.   Just watch the video and you'll get what I mean.

He's so right when he implies that we need to revolutionise the way we think about charities.  People need to STOP thinking that money spent on advertising, fundraising, campaigning and workers' salaries should be minimised as they don't contribute directly to donations and thus, the mission.  They are just as freaking important.

Watch the damn video.

Green Steps: a brief outline of why it's better than other activist organisations

A small child could fit in that gap.
Michael and Keith - the Green Stepping bros.

On the 30th, Michael - the avid Green Stepper (that's what they call themselves, it's very cute) took me to a Green Steps alumni event, primarily to learn about environmental sustainability but also to take advantage of free food and booze.  Embarrassingly, I got very dizzy/head-achey after half a beer.  Face palm.  I mean, is that even possible?  I have no idea.  I hadn't eaten for the whole day and as soon as I got there, the first thing I made a beeline for was a bottle of Pure Blonde. And heck no, that was not the first time I had alcohol.
#lifemistakes
#lightweight

It was a rather formal networking event where a bunch of expert panellists did a Q&A (you know the ABC show, right?) type session on the future of sustainability in business practices.  By sustainability, they didn't limit themselves to the definition of 'environmental sustainability' but also corporate social sustainability and risk.   Being mature professionals, they recognised that sustainability meant different things for different businesses and so they were not going to impose their priorities on others.

The panellists:

• Professor Kate Auty - Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Victoria

• Alison Read - Head of Environment & Sustainability, National Australia Bank

• Will Symons - National Practice Leader, Sustainability and Climate Change, AECOM Australia

• Matthew Belleghem - Principal Consultant | Environment, Sustainability, EHS & Renewable Energy, envirosearch

I'm wearing green for Green Steps.  Really trendy.

The event was incredibly enlightening, at least for me. As an organisation that aims to raise awareness of environmental sustainability and encourage businesses to adopt environmentally sustainable practices, they really distinguish themselves from other activist groups like Amnesty International (which I am a member of) and Greenpeace, whose usual tactics are to pressure institutions into reform via protesting and petitioning.  And sometimes, marching down streets holding placards full of puns and screaming into megaphones.  On the other hand, Green Steps completely and deliberately veers away from that sort of confrontational approach.  Instead, they work with government and other businesses to create sustainable projects and business practices, meaning they are there from the very start to offer input and ideas for improvement.  

It's a very fascinating approach. Green Steps educates students, no matter what they're studying, into incorporating practical strategies for sustainability into their thinking so that when they get jobs, they can make an impact from the inside and not from the outside.  It's like a really cool infiltration process.  And yes, they actually make efforts to help kids find internships in companies (which they hope will lead to an actual job) so they can fulfil the Green Steps mission.  Instead of confrontation, they negotiate.  While concessions have to be made at times, at least you're part of the process and you know you're making a change to some extent.  I find this very admirable.   And as you can see from the panel, these people are very very high up and are evidence of this nascent 'change from the inside' approach.

When you think about it, although Amnesty Int and Greenpeace are huge multinational NGOs who have undoubtedly made a mark on certain government policies, is putting pressure on governments and other institutions using the above strategies really the best way to go?  And is it really that effective?  One thing's for certain - protesting raises awareness but in terms of creating change, it really doesn't offer much and relies solely on the other agent or institution to buckle under pressure and thereby comply with their demands.  Obviously, I don't want to undermine any of their achievements and I actually know that both Amnesty and Greenpeace have at times moved toward a more cooperative and consultative approach, but Green Steps just seems so much more effective, perhaps at a more grass roots level.

This hippie guy, dressed in jeans and a hoodie and sporting a ponytail, was sitting at the front and was all like 'but what role does activism play in your approach?'  

LEL.  You can tell from the panellists' brief moment of silence that activism - in the way that that guy was thinking - did not play a role in Green Steps.  Green Steps is an environmentalist organisation that has established a highly professional and reliable team for businesses to turn to - obviously, not wanting to fuel the dichotomy that already exists between them and environmentalist groups.  

Will, one of the founders, said that when he was younger and at university, he was heavily involved with activism.  However, he realised that that sort of activism seemed to fuel arrogance and egocentric "about me" attitudes among the group.  People were so adamant about protecting the environment that they seemed to forget that businesses and governments have other priorities and values as well, and not necessarily for selfish/self-interested reasons.  So instead of imposing their values on them, they work to align their values.  

And that was what I took away most from that night.  It's a simple concept but it's not a very widely disseminated one among activists, who are much more likely to join large NGO groups focused on pressuring authorities into action instead of choosing an approach similar to Green Steps.  

+  I still think Amnesty Int and Greenpeace are very important and the world needs them.  Just, maybe, if a minority of their millions of members moved over to Green Steps-like organisations, it would be....interesting.