Compare the recent sponsorship controversy in Hong Kong with a 2016 New York Times report. When responding to the media, Hong Kong Vision also stated: "Donations from sponsors will be used for community development work, so that the sponsored children's community can build the capacity for sustainable development." So in this news, even if the recipient "smoked, drank and drove" and said that the money was not collected, it is not impossible. Because that money was used for "community development", it was never given directly to children. Therefore, you should understand clearly before participating in sponsorship.
However, in the minds of some people, they popular database have always misunderstood that the money is directly helping children, including Mr. Luo who has been sponsored for 10 years in this news incident. He always knew he was sponsoring a specific child, if not, why would Vision match him with a child? He said that if the money is donated to community projects, it should be called contributing to community projects, rather than using the word "sponsorship". "Sponsoring children" is a powerful way to raise funds. Once established, it is difficult to give up, how can anyone give up their sponsored children?
Everyone can think, Vision will use donations for community projects, strictly speaking, it is not called "sponsoring" children? Strictly speaking, the donor is "sponsoring" a regional project, which of course will benefit many children in the region, but it is obviously not sponsoring a child alone. As for the assisted child, does he agree with each other that they belong to a "sponso