Outline

Phần 1 (3-4 min): Giới thiê ̣u

 MC giới thiê ̣u chủ đề thảo luâ ̣n và khách mời
 Nói sơ lược tình hình mưa lũ miền trung (ngắn gọn!) sau đó dẫn vào viê ̣c làm từ thiê ̣n
Phần 2 (5 min): Hình thức quyên góp - Cá nhân hay tổ chức (VD Thủy Tiên)
Phần 3 (5 min): Ý kiến cô ̣ng đồng:
 So sánh số tiền quyên góp giữa các nghê ̣ sĩ
 Thái đô ̣ khi làm từ thiê ̣n (VD Hồ Viê ̣t Trung)

Full script
MC: Ladies and gentlemen, today we are going to have a special talkshow. Our topic is about
one of the hottest issues being covered at the moment: Charity during crises. As some of you
may know, when the 9th storm struck our country, a lot of attention has been paid to local people.
In this show, we are going to discuss 2 pressing issues: the most proper method of contribution
and the public’s viewpoint on charity. We welcome our 4 guests to the show: Ms HHen, Mr
Organization, Ms Government, Ms Journalist,… Let’s give them our warmest greetings.

MC: First, Ms Journalist, would you mind sharing with us some background information
regarding the way people are helping local people who are affected by the storm?

Jou: Well, obviously the storm has caused serious damage to local people and their property.
Funds are being raised all over the countries to cover the expenses as well as helping local
people overcome this hardship. One notable example is Ms Thuy Tien, who by far has raised a
substantial amount of fund – 150 billion VND – all by herself.

MC: 150 billion? Wow, it’s quite some money for one person, right?

Jou: Correct. And this has caused a lot of concern in the public. I mean, for such a huge amount
of money in one person’s hand, some people wonder if the money will be distributed properly to
the people who are truly in need, and whether Ms Thuy Tien can manage all that money by
herself. Also, while some agree that one individual has the right to call for help and raise funds in
the public, others suggest that an official organization should be doing this job.

MC: That’s a dilemma to be solved. Ms H’Hen, as a philanthropist yourself, what is your

opinion on this matter?

Ms H’Hen: To be honest, I myself have contributed to charity in the past, and I see no reason not
to allow one person to raise funds to help those in need, as long as that individual can ensure the
money be spent transparently. After all, the main purpose is to help the local people, so whether
the liaison is an organization or an individual is of no great importance. And empathy towards
the deprived is what unites people. I think that’s one reason why Ms Thuy Tien successfully
raised so much money: She can reach out to others’ hearts while official charity groups could
not.

MC: So, basically you agree that an individual should be allowed to raise funds all by
themselves. Mr Org, do you share the same viewpoint with Ms H’Hen?

Mr Org: As much as I would like to agree with Ms H’Hen, as a manager of a charity

organization myself, I know that such an organization exists for a purpose. I mean, while it is
true that the end is the same, it is very difficult for a person to distribute her time and resources
to manage the whole process all on her own. We are talking about 150 billion VND – a truly
remarkable amount, even for a professional organization to manage, let alone one individual.
Moreover, if a person were to be allowed to raise funds in the public by himself or herself, it
would create a lot of opportunities for scammers to make use of people’s empathy to line their
pockets. In short, having an official group to do the job is both safer and more effective.

Ms H’Hen: I believe that these problems can be solved. An individual can assess by themselves
how much money they can manage, and as soon as they reach their limits, they can always stop
calling for help. Secondly, scams are not confined to only individual philanthropists, many
scammers have pretended to be official organizations to trick people in the past, so I think it
doesn’t make a lot of difference.

MC: Ok now let’s listen to Ms …, a representative from the government, to provide us with
some regulations on this matter.
Ms Govern: In fact, the government has legislated some regulations on this matter. A decree was
signed in 2008 to introduce some criteria in which an organization is allowed to raise funds for
charity. However, those criteria are imposed on official organizations only. In addition, a decree
by the government is not as the law issued by congress, so it is not absolutely obligatory. Since
until now there has been no law against an individual raising money during crises, what Ms Thuy
Tien has been doing cannot be considered illegal in any way.

MC: So all in all, it is fair to say that any person has the right to raise funds for charity by
themselves, given that they can manage the process effectively, but on the other hand an official
organization is always helpful for this job.

MC: OK, now let’s move on to the other section of our show: the public’s attitude towards
charity, especially on the role of famous celebrities. Ms Jour, would you kindly provide us with
some facts on this matter?

Ms Jour: Well, there has been a heated debate over the amount of money that each public figure
contributed to the crisis. For example, there is a clear contrast between those who raised
significant amounts of money, such as Mr Quyen Linh with 2 billion VND or Mr Hoai Linh with
3.2 billion, to those who donated, say, only a modest amount, like Ms H’Hen with 50 million.
This huge gap has led the public to have some conflicting opinions about the individual’s role on
charity. Those who contributed a modest amount to charity tend to face criticism for being stingy
or heartless.

MC: So Ms H’Hen, what would you like to share about these criticisms?

Ms H’Hen: As an individual, I felt deeply hurt after receiving such negative comments. Although
I agree that it’s a good thing to donate great amounts of money for charity, resources vary from
person to person. What I mean is, contrary to what most people believe, not every celebrity has a
substantial income. Even if they did, I believe the amount of donation should be based on the
individual’s willingness, not on the public’s pressure towards them. To be honest, I myself don’t
really earn a huge amount of money just by being a public figure, and I firmly believe that what I
have given all comes from the bottom of my heart.

MC: Mr Org, do you share the same perspective as Ms H’Hen?

Mr Org: Actually, here’s what I have in mind. Every person is free to contribute however they
can to the public, but the story goes a little different for public figures. I mean, the very success
and wealth of celebrities come from the public’s admiration towards them, right? That’s why the
name goes “public figure.” I believe that in these times of crisis, celebrities should be returning
the favor to those who supported them in the past. The amount of money not only demonstrates
their sincerity, but it also acts as an encouragement for others to donate as much as they could.
Since famous people have walked in the limelight and received so much adoration from the
public, it’s only fair that in times of hardship they are obliged to donate a substantial, or at least
reasonable, amount of money from their income to help those in need.

Ms H’Hen: Obliged? Well, I’ve never thought of being a philanthropist as a form of obligation.
From my perspective, charity should come from sympathy and willingness. Of course, the
amount of money being raised is also important, but what matters the most is that people are
helping others on their free wills, not by force.

Ms Gov: I think Ms H’Hen’s got a point here. The very nature of charity is goodness and
therefore should come from our heart. Judging any individual on the ground of how much they
donated only sends the wrong message. If we were to put it this way, many people would
consider charity as responsibilities of those from upper class or extremely rich, and the social
effects of charity would lose its influence. By accepting whatever amount of money one is
willing to give, the true nature of charity would be reinforced, and more people will be willing to
give a helping hand regardless of their social backgrounds.

MC: So, overall it all comes down to willingness, right? I once heard a saying from an ancient
Roman philosopher, “Willing obedience always beats forced obedience.” The more freedom
people have, the more they are willing to give.

MC: Well, that concludes our show today. The message we’d like to convey is that it is crucial
that we have a proper viewpoint on charity, the foundation of which is people’s willingness and
freedom. We hope you enjoy our show and we’re really looking forward to seeing you next time.