The concept of social welfare contributions—whether in the form of religious obligations, taxation, or charitable giving—is meant to bridge economic disparities and provide dignity to those in need. However, the real challenge lies not in the collection of these funds, but in their equitable distribution. Too often, biases—whether racial, tribal, or economic—determine who benefits, rather than a genuine commitment to fairness and justice.

Beyond Racial and Economic Divides

There is no such thing as “charity for one group” and “charity for another.” Social welfare, whether through structured giving or institutionalized contributions, belongs to those it was intended for—the most vulnerable. The attempt to racialize or segregate these resources contradicts the very foundation of ethical giving. If contributions are collected under the pretence of serving all in need, then every recipient should be treated equally, without bias or preference.

Yet, the reality remains: those in positions of authority over these funds often fail to uphold the principles of fairness. Some groups, particularly marginalized communities, are used as the face of fundraising campaigns—images of their suffering are widely circulated to generate donations—only for the actual distribution to disproportionately favour those who control the institutions managing these funds.

The Exploitation of the Needy

If a system consistently raises funds under the pretext of addressing poverty but channels most of its resources toward a select group, this is not just unethical—it is a breach of trust. It is a model that sustains systemic inequality, where aid does not go where it is most needed, but where it is most convenient or politically beneficial.

One of the most insulting responses to marginalized communities questioning this imbalance is: “How much do you contribute?” This argument is deeply flawed because it overlooks the non-monetary contributions of the oppressed. It dismisses the fact that their very existence—their struggles, their hardships—are used to justify fundraising efforts. If they truly did not matter, why are their stories constantly used to attract donations?

The Root of the Problem: Bias in Administration

The greatest issue facing global aid and welfare systems is not a lack of funds or solutions—it is bias and exclusion. The very people who claim to uphold ethical distribution often operate in ways that privilege their own communities while sidelining others. This is not an issue exclusive to one region or group; it is a widespread problem seen in many societies where power is concentrated in the hands of a few.

If fairness is truly the goal, then institutions managing these funds must be held accountable. Transparency in collection and distribution should be non-negotiable. Community involvement should be inclusive, ensuring that no single group dominates decision-making. The moment financial aid is used to maintain social hierarchies instead of empowering the most vulnerable, it loses its ethical legitimacy.

The Right to Dignity, Not a Favor

Assistance, whether from a social fund, welfare program, or religious obligation, is not a gift—it is a right. Those in need are not “begging” for help; they are entitled to it. The goal of these funds should be to restore dignity by promoting sustainable economic opportunities, rather than perpetuating cycles of dependency and selective privilege.

A Call for Change

If institutions and organizations tasked with managing social funds fail to distribute resources equitably, then alternative structures must emerge. The power to create fair, transparent, and inclusive systems lies in the hands of the people. Silence in the face of injustice only perpetuates it.

To those who control these resources: If you truly believe in fairness, ensure that no group is excluded from what is rightfully theirs.

To those who are marginalized: You have a right to question, demand accountability, and seek justice. Do not allow systemic bias to dictate your worth.

True ethical giving is not measured by how much is collected, but by how fairly it is distributed. It is time to move beyond rhetoric and ensure that social contributions serve their true purpose: uplifting every person in need, without discrimination, bias, or favouritism.