Grateful compliment from Philanthropy Connections
Photo: Facebook Philanthropy Connections
On the first day of this month, we announced that Sallo Polak, the founder and director of Philanthropy Connections, would appear on Dutch television in Harry Mens' program Business Class, see https://www.thailandblog.nl/goede-doelen/philanthropy-connections-op-nederlandse-televisie
He also gave an interview on Radio Utrecht and visited potential sponsors for his organization. Sallo has now returned to his place in Chiang Mai and wrote us the following:
“Great news! Thanks to the article about my interview at Business Class, we have now secured the sponsorship for one of our projects.
A reader contacted us as a result of that article and the interview and now donates more than EUR 4.000 per year for English lessons at one of our projects.
Really great and I am and will always be very grateful to Thailandblog for supporting us.”
I wrote back to him:
Congratulations Sallo, great result!
“That's what you do it for” you hear, but that's not entirely true.
We only do the publication, you and your staff have to convince potential sponsors of the good cause and I'm sure that won't always be easy.
Good luck and warm regards
The last word was to Sallo Polak:
There should definitely be credit to Thailandblog.nl. Without the article, this sponsor would not have seen the interview and probably never would have contacted us. This kind of publicity is extremely valuable to us.
Thank you for your good wishes and warm regards!
Finally
I have been supporting Philanthropy Connections for years by making a monthly donation of a modest amount. It is nowhere near 4000 Euros that I give, but Sallo Polak's thanks are no less.
Sometimes I do have reservations about forms of financial aid and certain projects.
I am not saying that this help should not be given, but thinking about it can do no harm.
I have no problem with projects that provide help that is not or hardly provided by the country in question at the moment because it lacks the characteristics of a welfare state, eg, care for demented elderly or disabled people in Thailand. I have much more difficulty with aid for which there are regulations and money in the country in question, such as education in the English language, textbooks and maintenance of school buildings. The fact that the money is not spent for its intended purpose points to inefficient or perhaps corrupt spending. Charitable aid in this area implicitly legitimizes this kind of ineffectiveness. Why should people ask questions about this efficiency if the money does come from charitable institutions?