I REFER to the letters of Mr Radlauer (South China Morning Post, February 27) and of Mr De Wolf (Post, March 3).
I am happy to have started a debate on this important subject, but at the same time alarmed that my message was so badly misinterpreted. I totally agree with both letters and I wonder whether there was a linguistic problem that resulted in my being misunderstood.
Please let me rephrase my point. I am not rejecting private business, but think that businesses should not see themselves as substitutes to humanitarian organisations and they should stay away from the operational side of humanitarian action.
In the Benetton example, charities should have been in charge, with the financial contribution from Benetton. This would have ensured that the need for such an operation was identified, and that the timing and organisation was more appropriate. It appears Benetton dumped the campaign on the charities afterwards. It obviously wanted the big slice of the cake, but it messed it up.
The Community Chest is collecting money from companies and as a compensation, publishes their names, so that they can be proud of their contribution to the social welfare of the people of Hongkong. I applaud this.
In my article, I wrote: ''Commercial companies have realised how beneficial it could be to associate themselves to humanitarian organisations. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it primarily serves the interests of the victims . . . .'' I went on to say (but this was unfortunately cut out for obvious reasons of length) ''It (funding from companies) also helps humanitarian organisations to diversify their sources of income, a guarantee of their independence and freedom of action. Companies can thus play a very useful role in that respect.'' Medecins sans Frontieres uses millions donated by corporations and we work in good partnership.