Tins, tablets and trust: The business of fund raising in Singapore锡罐、药片和信任:新加坡的筹款业务
Singapore charities weigh flag days, paid fundraisers and trust in a cashless society as donation methods evolve. Read more at straitstimes.com.
Flag Days and collection tins once symbolised community service in Singapore. Today, charities increasingly rely on paid fund-raisers, a regulated but little-understood model that can make giving feel transactional. Hazel Tang reports.
Flag Days were once a fixture of the civic calendar. Today, that model is becoming harder to sustain.
PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: NG SOR LUAN, KUA CHEE SIONG, MANNY FRANCISCO
Published Oct 12, 2026, 05:00 AM
Updated Oct 12, 2026, 05:00 AM
“Xin ku le,” the elderly woman says in Mandarin, thanking Lester Ng for his hard work. Then, she dropped a few dollars into his collection tin and offered him more blessings.
The brief encounter took place at Bedok Hawker Centre in May 2025, during the Kidney Dialysis Foundation’s (KDF) annual Flag Day.
“I did not expect many people to donate, especially in today’s largely cashless society,” says the 53-year-old healthcare professional. “But we received donations of $10 and even $50 notes.”
The event brought back memories of the Flag Days he took part in as a Scout. This is the reason he now volunteers with his two children. He wants to instil in them the habit of giving back.
His children often collect more than he does. To Ng, it is a sign that Singaporeans still respond to young volunteers seeking small donations for a familiar cause.
At the same time, another type of fund-raiser has become just as familiar in Singapore’s streets.
On a weekday in November 2025, outside an MRT station in south-western Singapore, three young adults in matching vests and lanyards approach commuters, tablets in hand.
Most passers-by quicken their pace. When someone stops, one of the trio produces a pamphlet, explains the cause and asks for a donation.
Unlike Ng and his children, these are paid fund-raisers engaged by a company to raise money for a charity.
“I see them more now,” Ng says. “Instead of asking for small change, which requires minimal decision-making, they often seek larger donations and longer-term commitments.”
The contrast between the collection tin and the tablet reflects a wider shift in fund raising.
Even though these practices are regulated, it is becoming harder for people to know whom to trust, with volunteer collectors, paid fund-raisers and unverified sellers all competing for attention in public spaces.
Flag Days: More visibility than revenue
Flag Days were once a fixture of the civic calendar, with students collecting donations outside MRT stations, markets and shopping centres, often as part of school community-service programmes.
Today, that model is becoming harder to sustain.
Triston Siew, KDF’s manager for resource development and partnerships, says the charity landscape has grown increasingly crowded over the past decade.
Donors now support a wider range of causes, particularly those to which they feel a personal connection.
Schools are also less inclined to deploy large groups of students for collection drives.
“We were told that schools want their students to take part in activities with more visible impact, such as befriending or programmes that involve direct interaction with beneficiaries,” Siew says.
Adult volunteers increasingly want sustained and meaningful roles, too, adds Stella Antakusuma, KDF’s head of communications and stakeholder engagement.
Organising a Flag Day is labour-intensive. For its April 2025 Flag Day, Guide Dogs Singapore recruited more than 300 volunteers.
Volunteers at a Guide Dogs Singapore Flag Day. PHOTO: GUIDE DOGS SINGAPORE
Volunteers at a Guide Dogs Singapore Flag Day.
PHOTO: GUIDE DOGS SINGAPORE
Flag Days also yield relatively limited returns. Typically, one Flag Day raises about $30,000, says the charity’s head of community partnership Eileen Koh.
The amount accounts for less than 10% of Guide Dogs Singapore’s annual fund raising.
Meanwhile, KDF’s Siew says the organisation raises about $50,000 from a Flag Day, against annual expenditure of between $5 million and $6 million.
However, these figures do not make Flag Days irrelevant. Rather, charities now measure their value differently.
“When we engage with people face to face, it is very different from being read about online,” Koh says. “So Flag Day goes beyond fund raising. It is also advocacy and awareness-building.”
Indeed, personal contact matters.
The earlier edition of the National Giving Study, published in May 2025, found that offline giving remained the most common donation channel among more than 1,900 respondents.
While it does not measure the popularity of Flag Days specifically, the study’s findings suggest that people remain willing to give in person even as digital options multiply.
Why charities outsource fund raising
There are about 2,400 charities registered with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, says a spokesman for the Office of the Commissioner of Charities (COC).
COC does not track how many currently use, or have previously used, commercial fund-raisers. Nor does it separately track the number of companies providing such services or feedback specifically about them.
In 2019, The Straits Times reported that fewer than 20 companies in Singapore specialised mainly in commercial fund raising. One was SupportWorks Singapore, formerly known as Appco Group Asia.
At the time, SupportWorks said it had about 70 contracted charities as clients raising money for causes including animal welfare, the environment and health.
Public disclosures and charity websites show that commercial fund-raisers are used by organisations including 365 Cancer Prevention Society, Food from the Heart, Special Olympics Asia Pacific, Singapore Heart Foundation and the Bone Marrow Donor Programme.
They typically seek recurring monthly, half-yearly or annual donations. An annual donation can fall between $780 and $816.
A charity that hires fund-raisers directly must pay salaries and build systems to train staff, handle donor inquiries, process contributions and retain supporters, without knowing how much money the team will bring in. ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG
A charity that hires fund-raisers directly must pay salaries and build systems to train staff, handle donor inquiries, process contributions and retain supporters, without knowing how much money the team will bring in.
ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG
For charities, the appeal is clear: Regular contributions make income more predictable.
Joanna Tan, director of Woodbridge Hospital Charity Fund, who also teaches fund raising at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), says many organisations lack the expertise and resources to run full fund-raising teams.
Social service professionals, she says, are typically trained to provide care and support, not to market causes, recruit donors and manage payments.
“This is an additional headcount,” Tan says. “Their salary has to be paid without knowing how much they can actually raise.”
Outsourcing transfers some of that risk to a third-party company, which handles recruitment, training, deployment and sales. The recurring donations it secures can offer charities with limited reserves some stability.
However, the model also carries financial, managerial and reputational costs.
ST approached several charities that had publicly disclosed their use of commercial fund-raisers to understand how the arrangements worked and why the charities relied on them.
Most declined to be interviewed, although some acknowledged the importance of the issue and reiterated their commitment to transparency.
An executive at one such charity says that commercial fund-raising companies typically receive between 18% and 20% of the amount raised.
“In good times, donations can run into several million dollars,” says the executive, who asked not to be named. He acknowledges that commercial fund-raisers are often viewed with suspicion.
Some people see their tactics as guilt-tripping; others fear that donations are lining fund-raisers’ pockets rather than helping beneficiaries.
Nevertheless, the executive stresses that outsourcing fund raising is often the most cost-effective option.
“People do not realise something as simple as replying to an e-mail or confirming that a donation has been processed requires manpower, and not every charity can afford that.”
He elaborates that commercial fund-raisers hire individuals to approach passers-by in public areas and encourage them to make recurring donations.
These individuals are often paid based on the number of sign-ups secured or amount raised. A typical fund-raising campaign involves 15 to 20 of them.
Some commercial fund-raisers also use performance targets, rankings or incentives to motivate individual results.
The workers behind the tablets
For those doing the approaching, the work can be precarious.
A local freelance illustrator, who wishes to be known as Chan, spent four months as a paid fund-raiser in 2016, after graduating from polytechnic.
She found the role on an online job platform and was recruited by Appco, then part of Cobra Group. The business was acquired by SalesWorks Singapore in 2019.
Chan describes a tiered organisation headed by a chief manager, with several levels of managers below him. She reported to one whom she identifies only as L.
In her first two months, Chan and L’s other recruits sold home broadband services and mobile plans for two telecommunications companies. They were paid weekly on commission, based on the number of packages sold.
Most weeks, she says, she earned less than $100.
In her third month, she was reassigned to raise funds for a local charity. She recalls that 12.5% of every one-off or recurring donation formed a commission pool divided among the company, the chief manager, L and herself.
Performance is closely monitored through sales targets. High performers may recruit others, earn commissions and move into management roles.
“The company promised a lot: becoming your own boss, travelling overseas, retiring young,” Chan says. “It all boiled down to enduring hardship now and getting rich later... It keeps scaling up until you can run your own office.”
According to her, a typical day starts with briefings, coaching and team chants. Shifts can run from 9am to 9pm or match shopping centre opening hours.
Although breaks were allowed, paid fund-raisers were frequently encouraged to work weekends, sometimes seven days a week.
Despite being trained to approach strangers, sustain a conversation, secure a sale or donation, and handle rejection politely, she struggled to sign up donors.
“There were weeks when I earned nothing at all,” she says.
A woman seeking donations from members of the public at Kim Keat Palm Market & Food Centre in Toa Payoh. ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG
A woman seeking donations from members of the public at Kim Keat Palm Market & Food Centre in Toa Payoh.
Still, the job attracted young people with little experience of the working world, as well as older workers. Chan recalls a father who ranked among the top earners because he had a gift for talking to people.
Chan says she did not feel exploited. Fresh out of school, she had little basis for comparing the arrangement with other jobs.
On one exceptional day, a donor gave $10,000, generating an unusually large commission. Such windfalls were rare, however, underscoring the uncertainty of the work.
“I certainly do not want to work in sales again,” she says. “I will avoid it at all costs. How do you sell ‘charities’? It just felt transactional.”
A 2025 study led by SUSS associate professor Justina Tan examined how age and education shaped employment preferences.
It surveyed more than 1,000 Singapore citizens and permanent residents aged 18 to 35, with qualifications ranging from secondary school certificates to postgraduate degrees.
Among respondents aged 18 to 25 whose highest qualification was secondary education, flexible working arrangements ranked as the top consideration when choosing a job.
Commission-based roles can offer such flexibility, Justina Tan says, as well as the prospect of immediate payment.
Unlike workers in hourly paid jobs, who must keep fixed hours and wait until the end of the month for their wages, commission workers are usually paid within a much shorter period.
The promise of quick rewards can be appealing, she adds, particularly in a social-media culture that encourages instant gratification. Flexible work also allows people to juggle several jobs.
“If I do not earn money from this one, I can always do something else,” she says.
Some also find commission-based work genuinely rewarding. Paid fund raising requires them to engage with the public, persuade strangers and cope with rejection, experiences that routine hourly work may not offer.
But Justina Tan cautions that staying in such arrangements for too long could slow a worker’s development and leave the person at a disadvantage later.
“Human beings are creatures of habit,” she says. “If they can get by, they may simply stay where they are.”
When different appeals look alike
Regulated charity fund raising and private doorstep selling are not the same.
To members of the public, however, the encounters can look remarkably similar. A young stranger approaches, tells an emotive story and asks for money.
That overlap can make it harder for people to distinguish legitimate appeals from commercial sales approaches.
Professor Irene Ng of NUS’ Department of Social Work recalls opening her door to a woman and child who said they came from a low-income family and were selling ice cream for extra income.
The encounter stayed with her. Over the years, she has met others with similar stories.
“The most recent was a young girl,” Ng says. “The first thing she told me was: ‘I am 14 years old. I am selling ice cream because my parents said I need to earn my pocket money.’”
Others have sold small items or claimed to be paid fund-raisers for charities. At the doorstep, Ng says, it can be difficult to establish whether their claims are true.
If the stories are false, she worries that young people are being taught to lie for money. If they are true, she questions the ethics of using – or appearing to use – a young person’s hardship to elicit sympathy.
“Getting young people to tell sob stories and guilt-trip the public into buying something borders on a scam,” she says.
The legal distinction is important. A charity appeal involving the sale of goods is subject to fund-raising regulations, including the 30/70 rule. For such appeals, fund-raising receipts are generally calculated after deducting the cost of the goods.
But a person selling ice cream for a private company, or independently, is not conducting a charitable appeal merely because the sales pitch invokes hardship or sounds charitable.
Checks by ST found online advertisements for “brand ambassador” roles that revealed little beyond duties such as “increasing brand awareness”. One advertisement aimed at students directed applicants to contact a social media account listed on an accompanying poster.
ST reached out to local gig platform, Quest, after an online forum comment suggested door-to-door sale roles may be advertised there. The commenter said he was told the job was commission-based and preferred applicants aged 13 to 21.
Quest co-founder and CEO Evan Chow told ST via e-mail that the platform is meant for one-off tasks such as errands and creative work, and does not allow purely commission-based or potentially misleading listings.
Such posts are removed when identified and thus far, Quest has not received public complaints about similar cases. However, ST found at least six listings labelled “brand ambassador”, some repeatedly posted by the same user.
A job advertisement on a local gig-work platform targeted at students directed interested applicants to contact a social media account listed on an accompanying poster.
ST also contacted seven ice-cream wholesalers after online reviews alleged that young people were selling their products door to door at marked-up prices.
Three replied. One said it had not been affected. The other two were aware of such accounts but said they neither supplied ice cream to students or individuals nor endorsed street or doorstep sales.
One wholesaler, which declined to be named, says it has received complaints from members of the public and concerned parents for more than 12 years.
It supplies only licensed distributors and hawkers, and says internal checks found no evidence that it had sold ice cream to young people for large-scale resale.
A one-litre pack of traditional hawker-style ice cream typically costs between $5.50 and $7.90, depending on the brand and retailer, ST found.
The source of any particular doorstep operation may be difficult to establish. Suspicion, however, spreads easily, potentially affecting not only the seller involved, but also legitimate charities and fund-raisers who approach the public in similar ways.
“We believe greater public awareness and clearer guidelines would be helpful in addressing this issue,” one of the ice cream wholesalers says.
The COC receives about 80 feedback submissions a year on fund-raising conduct, charity governance and internal controls. These cover a range of concerns, not just complaints about commercial fund-raisers alone.
The agency advises people not to feel pressured to donate if they have doubts about an appeal. Suspicious activity can be reported to the COC, or to the police if fraud or a scam is suspected.
A job advertisement on a local gig-work platform for “brand ambassador” roles reveal little beyond duties such as “increasing brand awareness”.
Trust cannot be outsourced
That is the risk charities face. The harder it is for people to distinguish among volunteers, regulated commercial fund-raisers and unverified sellers, the more trust the sector stands to lose.
An unnamed former charity CEO says unverified sellers who present themselves as charities can taint the entire sector, especially when public anxiety over scams is high.
Outsourcing can be justified when it advances a charity’s mission, she says. But organisations remain responsible for ensuring that paid fund-raisers are properly trained, closely supervised and able to uphold their values.
“Only those who truly believe in the cause will stay,” she says of fund-raising work, including in-house roles. Charities must therefore keep investing in recruitment and retention, or face repeatedly training new staff.
Joanna Tan says the longer-term solution is for charities to strengthen their own fund-raising capabilities through clearer communication, stronger branding and greater transparency about how donations are used.
Online giving platforms have gained ground partly because they make the effect of a donation easy to understand, she says. Donors can see what $10 or $50 will pay for and who it will help.
“That is extremely powerful,” she says.
The aim is not to abolish face-to-face fund-raising, but to make it more accountable, transparent and closely connected to the cause it represents.
The Kidney Dialysis Foundation’s annual flag day. PHOTO: KIDNEY DIALYSIS FOUNDATION
The Kidney Dialysis Foundation’s annual flag day.
PHOTO: KIDNEY DIALYSIS FOUNDATION
Joanna Tan suggests that charities tap senior corporate leaders as skilled volunteers to strengthen fund-raising, communications and donor management.
She adds: “More importantly, we need to understand how donors think and how that changes with society. We should not just ask for money, but involve people. Some may prefer to contribute their time and skills.”
For KDF volunteer Ng, Flag Day remains a meaningful cause. While some people avoided him when they saw the collection tin, he says the experience was rewarding overall.
He says: “Most of my friends and family were proud that my children and I volunteered together. Some even came down personally to donate. It felt like a well-spent afternoon, knowing we were helping needy dialysis patients.
“I hope people understand that giving back is not just for those with lots of free time or certain groups of people. If Singapore is to continue moving forward as a society, this should be part of everyone’s social responsibility.
“Small efforts, when combined, can make a huge difference. Volunteering and donating should be something we continue to make space for in our lives.”
Crowdfunding and fundraising
在新加坡,国旗日和募捐箱曾是社区服务的象征。如今,慈善机构越来越依赖付费筹款人,这种受监管但鲜为人知的模式可能会让捐赠显得像是交易。Hazel Tang报道。
国旗日曾是市政日程上的固定活动。如今,这种模式越来越难以维系。
照片插图:吴淑銮、郭志雄、曼尼·弗朗西斯科
发布于 2026 年 10 月 12 日上午 5:00
更新于2026年10月12日凌晨5:00
“谢谢,”老妇人用普通话说,感谢莱斯特·吴的辛勤工作。然后,她往他的募捐箱里投了几块钱,并送上更多祝福。
这次短暂的会面发生在 2025 年 5 月的勿洛小贩中心,当时正值肾脏透析基金会 (KDF) 的年度旗帜日。
这位53岁的医护人员说:“我没想到会有这么多人捐款,尤其是在如今这个基本无现金支付的社会。但我们收到了10美元甚至50美元的捐款。”
这次活动让他想起了小时候作为童子军参加的升旗仪式。这也是他现在和两个孩子一起做义工的原因。他希望从小培养他们回馈社会的习惯。
他的孩子们募集的捐款往往比他本人还多。在吴先生看来,这表明新加坡人仍然会响应年轻志愿者为一项熟悉的事业募集小额捐款的号召。
与此同时,另一种类型的筹款活动在新加坡街头也变得司空见惯。
2025 年 11 月的一个工作日,在新加坡西南部的一个地铁站外,三名身穿配套背心、佩戴挂绳的年轻人手持平板电脑走向通勤者。
大多数路人都会加快脚步。当有人停下来时,三人中的一人会拿出传单,解释他们的诉求并请求捐款。
与吴和他的孩子们不同,这些人是受雇于公司为慈善机构筹款的付费筹款人。
“我现在更常见到他们了,”吴说。“他们不再像以前那样请求小额捐款(因为小额捐款几乎不需要做任何决定),而是经常寻求更大额的捐款和更长期的承诺。”
募捐罐和平板电脑之间的对比反映了筹款方式的更广泛转变。
尽管这些行为受到监管,但人们越来越难以知道该信任谁,因为志愿者收集者、付费筹款人和未经核实的卖家都在公共场所争夺关注。
升旗日:曝光度高于收益
国旗日曾经是市政日历上的固定活动,学生们会在地铁站、市场和购物中心外募集捐款,这通常是学校社区服务计划的一部分。
如今,这种模式越来越难以维持。
KDF资源开发与合作经理Triston Siew表示,过去十年里,慈善领域的竞争越来越激烈。
捐赠者现在支持的事业范围更广,尤其是那些与他们有个人联系的事业。
学校也不太愿意组织大批学生参与募捐活动。
“我们了解到,学校希望学生参与一些有更明显影响的活动,例如结交朋友或与受益人直接互动的项目,”Siew 说。
肯尼亚国防军 (KDF) 通讯和利益相关者参与负责人斯特拉·安塔库苏玛补充说,成年志愿者也越来越希望担任持续且有意义的角色。
组织升旗日活动需要耗费大量人力。为了筹备2025年4月的升旗日活动,新加坡导盲犬协会招募了300多名志愿者。
新加坡导盲犬协会旗帜日活动上的志愿者。照片:新加坡导盲犬协会
新加坡导盲犬协会国旗日活动的志愿者们。
照片:新加坡导盲犬协会
国旗日活动的收益也相对有限。该慈善机构社区合作负责人艾琳·科赫表示,通常情况下,一次国旗日活动只能筹集到大约3万美元。
这笔款项不到新加坡导盲犬协会年度筹款额的10%。
与此同时,KDF 的 Siew 表示,该组织每年通过国旗日筹集约 5 万美元,而其年度支出在 500 万至 600 万美元之间。
然而,这些数据并不意味着“旗帜日”活动就毫无意义。相反,慈善机构现在衡量其价值的方式有所不同。
“与人们面对面交流和在网上阅读信息截然不同,”Koh说道。“因此,国旗日不仅仅是筹款活动,它也是宣传和提高公众意识的活动。”
的确,人际交往很重要。
2025 年 5 月发布的早期版本的《全国捐赠研究》发现,在 1900 多名受访者中,线下捐赠仍然是最常见的捐赠渠道。
虽然这项研究没有具体衡量国旗日的受欢迎程度,但研究结果表明,即使数字捐赠方式越来越多,人们仍然愿意亲自捐赠。
为什么慈善机构将筹款工作外包
慈善事务专员办公室(COC)的一位发言人表示,文化、社区和青年部注册的慈善机构约有 2400 个。
COC 不追踪目前有多少人使用或曾经使用过商业筹款服务,也不单独追踪提供此类服务的公司数量或针对此类服务的反馈。
2019年,《海峡时报》报道称,新加坡专门从事商业融资的公司不到20家。其中一家是SupportWorks Singapore,前身为Appco Group Asia。
当时,SupportWorks 表示,它拥有约 70 家签约慈善机构客户,这些机构为包括动物福利、环境和健康在内的事业筹集资金。
公开披露的信息和慈善机构网站显示,包括 365 癌症预防协会、爱心食物基金会、亚太特殊奥林匹克运动会、新加坡心脏基金会和骨髓捐献者计划在内的组织都在使用商业筹款活动。
他们通常寻求每月、每半年或每年的定期捐款。年度捐款金额在780美元至816美元之间。
直接雇佣筹款人员的慈善机构必须支付工资,并建立系统来培训员工、处理捐赠者咨询、处理捐款和维系支持者,却无法预知团队能筹集到多少资金。(海峡时报照片:柯志雄)
直接雇佣筹款人员的慈善机构必须支付工资,并建立系统来培训员工、处理捐赠者咨询、处理捐款和留住支持者,但却不知道团队能筹集到多少钱。
《海峡时报》摄影:郭志雄
对于慈善机构来说,其吸引力显而易见:定期捐款使收入更加可预测。
伍德布里奇医院慈善基金会主任乔安娜·谭(Joanna Tan)同时也是新加坡社会科学大学(SUSS)筹款课程的教授,她表示,许多组织缺乏运营完整筹款团队所需的专业知识和资源。
她说,社会服务专业人员通常接受的是提供关怀和支持的培训,而不是推销事业、招募捐助者和管理付款。
“这相当于增加了一名员工,”谭说道。“我们必须在不知道他们实际能筹集到多少资金的情况下支付他们的工资。”
外包将部分风险转移给了第三方公司,由其负责招聘、培训、部署和销售。外包带来的持续捐款可以为储备金有限的慈善机构提供一定的稳定性。
然而,这种模式也会带来财务、管理和声誉方面的成本。
ST 接触了多家公开披露其使用商业筹款活动的慈善机构,以了解这些安排是如何运作的,以及这些慈善机构为什么依赖这些安排。
大多数人拒绝接受采访,但有些人承认这个问题的重要性,并重申了他们对透明度的承诺。
一家慈善机构的负责人表示,商业筹款公司通常会获得筹款金额的 18% 到 20%。
这位不愿透露姓名的高管表示:“在经济形势好的时候,捐款额可以达到数百万美元。” 他也承认,商业筹款活动常常受到质疑。
有些人认为他们的做法是在让人产生愧疚感;另一些人则担心捐款会流入筹款人的腰包,而不是帮助受益人。
然而,这位高管强调,外包筹款通常是最具成本效益的选择。
“人们没有意识到,像回复电子邮件或确认捐款已处理这样简单的事情也需要人力,而并非每个慈善机构都能负担得起这笔费用。”
他进一步解释说,商业募捐者会雇佣人员在公共场所接近路人,并鼓励他们进行定期捐款。
这些人通常根据招募到的注册人数或筹款金额获得报酬。一次典型的筹款活动会涉及15到20名这样的人员。
一些商业筹款人也会使用绩效目标、排名或激励措施来激励个人取得成果。
平板电脑背后的工作人员
对于那些采取接近行动的人来说,这项工作可能充满风险。
一位自称陈的本地自由插画师,在2016年从理工学院毕业后,曾担任了四个月的付费筹款人。
她通过在线招聘平台找到了这份工作,并被当时隶属于Cobra集团的Appco公司录用。该公司于2019年被新加坡SalesWorks收购。
Chan描述了一个层级分明的组织,由一名首席经理领导,其下有多个级别的经理。她向一位她只称之为L的经理汇报工作。
在最初的两个月里,陈和L招募的其他员工为两家电信公司销售家庭宽带服务和移动套餐。他们按周领取佣金,佣金根据销售的套餐数量而定。
她说,大多数时候,她每周的收入不到100美元。
入职第三个月,她被调去为当地一家慈善机构筹款。她回忆说,每笔一次性或定期捐款的12.5%都会形成一个佣金池,由公司、首席经理、L和她本人平分。
业绩通过销售目标进行密切监控。业绩优异者可以招募其他员工、赚取佣金并晋升管理岗位。
“公司承诺了很多:自己当老板、出国旅行、早早退休,”陈说。“但归根结底,就是现在吃苦,以后发财……公司规模不断扩大,直到你能管理自己的办公室。”
据她介绍,典型的一天从简报、指导和团队口号开始。轮班时间从早上9点到晚上9点,或者与购物中心的营业时间一致。
虽然允许休息,但经常鼓励有偿筹款人员在周末工作,有时甚至一周工作七天。
尽管她接受过如何接近陌生人、如何维持对话、如何促成交易或获得捐款以及如何礼貌地应对拒绝的培训,但她仍然很难招募到捐赠者。
“有好几个星期我一分钱收入都没有,”她说。
一名女子在位于大巴窑的金吉棕榈市场及熟食中心向公众募捐。海峡时报摄影:柯志雄
一名女子在位于大巴窑的金吉棕榈市场及熟食中心向公众募捐。
尽管如此,这份工作仍然吸引了许多缺乏工作经验的年轻人以及一些年纪较大的求职者。陈回忆起他的一位父亲,因为善于与人沟通,所以收入名列前茅。
陈女士表示她并不觉得自己被剥削。由于刚毕业,她没有太多经验去将这份工作与其他工作进行比较。
在某个特殊的日子里,一位捐赠者慷慨解囊,捐赠了1万美元,带来了一笔数额异常巨大的佣金。然而,这种意外之财实属罕见,也凸显了这项工作的不确定性。
“我绝对不想再做销售工作了,”她说。“我会不惜一切代价避免它。‘慈善’怎么能卖出去呢?感觉就像是交易一样。”
由新加坡社会科学大学副教授 Justina Tan 领导的一项 2025 年研究调查了年龄和教育如何影响就业偏好。
该调查访问了 1000 多名年龄在 18 至 35 岁之间的新加坡公民和永久居民,他们的学历从中学毕业证书到研究生学位不等。
在 18 至 25 岁、最高学历为中学的受访者中,灵活的工作安排是选择工作时的首要考虑因素。
Justina Tan表示,佣金制工作可以提供这种灵活性,以及立即获得报酬的可能性。
与按小时计薪的工人不同,按小时计薪的工人必须遵守固定工时,并且要等到月底才能拿到工资,而佣金制工人通常在更短的时间内就能拿到工资。
她补充说,快速获得回报的承诺很有吸引力,尤其是在鼓励即时满足的社交媒体文化中。灵活的工作方式也让人们能够兼顾多份工作。
“如果这份工作赚不到钱,我还可以做别的工作,”她说。
有些人也觉得按佣金计酬的工作更有成就感。有偿筹款工作需要他们与公众互动、说服陌生人并应对拒绝,这些都是常规的计时工作可能无法提供的经验。
但贾斯蒂娜·谭提醒说,长时间处于这种安排可能会减缓劳动者的发展,并使人在以后处于不利地位。
“人类是习惯的动物,”她说。“如果能维持现状,他们可能就会继续待在原地。”
当不同的诉求看起来很相似时
正规的慈善筹款活动和私人上门推销是两回事。
然而,在普通民众看来,这些遭遇可能非常相似。一个陌生年轻人走过来,讲述一个感人的故事,然后索要钱财。
这种重叠可能会使人们更难区分合法的呼吁和商业销售手段。
新加坡国立大学社会工作系的 Irene Ng 教授回忆说,她曾给一位妇女和一个孩子开门,她们说自己来自低收入家庭,靠卖冰淇淋来赚取额外的收入。
那次偶遇一直萦绕在她心头。这些年来,她也遇到过其他有类似经历的人。
“最近遇到的是一位年轻女孩,”吴女士说。“她告诉我的第一句话是:‘我14岁。我卖冰淇淋是因为我父母说我需要挣零花钱。’”
还有一些人兜售小件物品,或者声称自己是慈善机构的付费筹款人。吴女士说,上门推销时,很难核实他们的说法是否属实。
如果这些故事是假的,她担心年轻人会被教唆为了钱而撒谎。如果这些故事是真的,她质疑利用(或看似利用)年轻人的困境来博取同情是否合乎道德。
“让年轻人讲述悲惨故事,并以此来胁迫公众购买商品,这近乎诈骗,”她说。
法律上的区别至关重要。涉及商品义卖的慈善募捐活动须遵守筹款法规,包括30/70规则。对于此类募捐活动,筹款收入通常在扣除商品成本后计算。
但是,为私人公司或独立销售冰淇淋的人,仅仅因为销售话术诉诸于困境或听起来像慈善,并不构成慈善募捐。
《海峡时报》的调查发现,网上有一些招聘“品牌大使”的广告,但除了“提升品牌知名度”等职责外,几乎没有透露其他信息。其中一则面向学生的广告,要求申请者联系随附海报上列出的社交媒体账号。
ST在收到一条网络论坛评论后联系了当地的零工平台Quest,该评论称Quest上可能发布了上门推销的职位。评论者表示,他被告知该工作是佣金制,并且优先考虑13至21岁的申请人。
Quest 联合创始人兼首席执行官 Evan Chow 通过电子邮件告诉《海峡时报》,该平台旨在处理跑腿和创意工作等一次性任务,不允许纯粹基于佣金或可能具有误导性的列表。
此类帖子一经发现即被删除,迄今为止,Quest尚未收到关于类似情况的公开投诉。然而,《海峡时报》发现至少有六条帖子被标记为“品牌大使”,其中一些帖子是由同一用户多次发布的。
当地一家面向学生的零工平台上发布的招聘广告,引导感兴趣的申请人联系随附海报上列出的社交媒体账号。
在有网络评论称年轻人挨家挨户以高价兜售冰淇淋产品后,《海峡时报》也联系了七家冰淇淋批发商。
三家公司作出了回应。一家表示未受影响。另外两家表示知道有此类账户,但表示他们既不向学生或个人供应冰淇淋,也不支持街头或上门销售。
一家不愿透露名称的批发商表示,12 年来,他们一直收到公众和忧心忡忡的家长们的投诉。
该公司只向有执照的经销商和小贩供货,并表示内部检查没有发现任何证据表明该公司曾向年轻人出售冰淇淋进行大规模转售。
《海峡时报》发现,一升装的传统小贩式冰淇淋的价格通常在 5.50 美元到 7.90 美元之间,具体价格取决于品牌和零售商。
任何特定上门募捐活动的源头都可能难以确定。然而,怀疑却很容易蔓延,不仅可能影响涉事卖家,还可能影响以类似方式接触公众的合法慈善机构和筹款人。
一位冰淇淋批发商表示:“我们认为,提高公众意识和制定更清晰的指导方针将有助于解决这个问题。”
慈善机构行为委员会每年收到约80份关于筹款行为、慈善机构治理和内部控制的反馈意见。这些意见涵盖了诸多方面,并非仅限于对商业筹款者的投诉。
该机构建议民众,如果对募捐活动有任何疑虑,不要迫于压力而捐款。如有可疑活动,可向COC举报;如果怀疑存在欺诈或诈骗行为,则可向警方报案。
本地零工平台上发布的“品牌大使”招聘广告,除了“提高品牌知名度”等职责外,并未透露太多信息。
信任无法外包。
这就是慈善机构面临的风险。人们越难区分志愿者、受监管的商业筹款人和未经核实的卖家,该行业就越容易失去信任。
一位不愿透露姓名的前慈善机构首席执行官表示,未经核实的卖家冒充慈善机构会玷污整个行业,尤其是在公众对诈骗感到高度焦虑的情况下。
她表示,当外包有助于慈善机构实现其使命时,这种做法是合理的。但机构仍然有责任确保付费筹款人员接受过适当的培训,受到严格的监督,并能够坚守其价值观。
她谈到筹款工作(包括内部职位)时说:“只有真正相信这项事业的人才会留下来。” 因此,慈善机构必须持续投资于招聘和留住人才,否则就将面临反复培训新员工的局面。
Joanna Tan表示,从长远来看,慈善机构应该通过更清晰的沟通、更强大的品牌建设以及提高捐款使用透明度来增强自身的筹款能力。
她表示,在线捐赠平台之所以发展迅速,部分原因在于它们让捐款的效果一目了然。捐赠者可以清楚地看到10美元或50美元的捐款将用于哪些方面,以及将帮助到哪些人。
“这非常强大,”她说。
其目的并非废除面对面筹款,而是使其更具问责性、透明度,并与所代表的事业紧密相连。
肾透析基金会年度升旗仪式。图片:肾透析基金会
肾透析基金会的年度升旗日。
图片来源:肾透析基金会
Joanna Tan建议慈善机构聘请企业高层领导作为技能娴熟的志愿者,以加强筹款、沟通和捐赠者管理。
她补充道:“更重要的是,我们需要了解捐赠者的想法,以及这种想法如何随着社会的变化而变化。我们不应该只是索要资金,而应该让人们参与进来。有些人可能更愿意贡献他们的时间和技能。”
对于肯尼亚国防军志愿者吴先生来说,国旗日依然是一项意义非凡的公益活动。虽然有些人看到募捐箱时会避开他,但他表示总体而言,这次经历让他受益匪浅。
他说:“我的大多数朋友和家人都为我和孩子们一起做志愿者而感到自豪。有些人甚至亲自前来捐款。想到我们帮助了需要透析的病人,就觉得这个下午过得很有意义。”
“我希望大家明白,回馈社会并非只是那些有很多空闲时间的人或特定群体的专属。如果新加坡想要继续作为一个社会向前发展,这应该是每个人的社会责任。”
“积少成多,小小的努力也能产生巨大的影响。我们应该继续在生活中留出时间参与志愿活动和捐赠。”
众筹和筹款