Diversity and Change

in Charitable Giving in Thailand

52

        
 
 
 
 2 0 2 2

Ro s alia S cior t ino

Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

Diversity
and Change
in Charitable
Giving in
Thailand
by Rosalia Sciortino
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

Diversity and Change

in Charitable Giving in Thailand

Author: Dr. Rosalia Sciortino

Diversity and Change in Charitable Giving in Thailand. 2022.

1. Charitable giving 2. Merit Making 3. Philanthropic sector

First Published 2022

ISBN (e-book): 978-616-398-691-7
Cover and format design by: Pisut Kongkit
Publisher’s name: Khonthai 4.0 Program
supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT),
Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University
Printed By: Login Design Work, 127/31 Chang Phueak, Muang Chiang Mai
Thailand 50300

© Copyright 2022 By National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT)

All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without either
the prior written permission of the Publisher or a license permitting restricted copying in Thailand.

The content of this book was derived from the academic article “Diversity and Change in Charitable Giving
in Thailand” under Khonthai 4.0 Program supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

Content

Abstract 4 / Introduction 5 / Interdependence

and Reciprocity Shape Benevolence 7 /
Merit Making Drives Giving in Theravada
Buddhism 9 / Diversity in Buddhist
Merit-Making 11 / Merit Making in
Other Religious Traditions 15 / Muslim
Giving In-Between Duty and Solidarity
17 / Faith Drives Individual Giving to
Religious Causes 19 / Religious
Institutions Under the Spotlight 24 /
Royal Foundations and Projects Promote
Development 30 / Family and Corporate
Initiatives Dominate the Philanthropic
Sector 34 / New Forms of Giving Lead
to New Ways? 39 / Ecosystem Favors
Charitable Giving 41 / Conclusion 45 /
References 46 / About the Author 51
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

Abstract

This paper examines the characteristics of charitable

giving —including monetary, in-kind and in terms of
voluntary time devoted to others— in Thailand today. In
particular, it aims to show the diversity of giving values
and practices co-existing in the country. So far, much
attention has been given to the influence of Theravada
Buddhism, as the majority religion, on the local concept
of giving. Values of merit-making and filial piety have
often been mentioned to stress how giving is deeply
rooted in Thai culture and society. This, however, has
led to a neglect of other cultural and social factors, and
obfuscated giving practices among minority groups. The
article challenges this presumed homogeneity of ‘Thai’
giving by describing how every group, while sharing
some common socio-cultural notions has a rich tradition
supported by its specific religious, spiritual, and
socio-cultural beliefs and how the interplay of religious
and ethnic dynamics with other social structures such
as gender and class results in differentiated giving
among diverse groups. Moreover, it shows that such
diverse traditions and practices are being affected by the
policy environment and new trends in the philanthropic
sector and it questions whether charitable giving is
sufficient or more structural and transformational forms
of institutionalized giving are needed to resolving social
problems. This article delves into these issues drawing
on literature as well as on the writer’s own personal
experience as a philanthropy practitioner in the region
with the hope of inspiring further research in this area
that takes into account diversity and change in giving.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

Introduction
Thailand has a reputation for being a generous country, with an established tradition
of giving generally explained as ingrained in Theravada Buddhism, as the religion of
the majority population. The Charities Aid Foundation’s (CAF) World Giving Index,
which measures giving globally based on the three indicators of helping a stranger,
donating money for a good cause and volunteering time, has for years ranked
the country among the top 20 overall and among the top 10 in donating money.
However, last year, Thailand fell from 16th to 62nd place on the overall ranking and
from 5th to 22nd place on the score of donating money. This worst performance
ever, is mainly due to the significant reduction in the percentage of people who
donated money in the month preceding the interviews from 68 to 53 percent
(CAF 2018). On the other indicators, there was also a reduction, but for Thailand
‘helping a stranger’ and, especially, ‘volunteering’ have consistently been of lesser
significance. This has brought Pahonyolthin (2017: 189) to conclude that for
Thais “time is the rarer commodity” and they prefer donations as the means of
charitable giving “since it is easy to do ‘with no strings attached’”. Myanmar,
another majority Theravada Buddhist country in Southeast Asia, also went down from
1st to 9th place, while Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country in the word and
the region, topped the Index for the first time (CAF 2018; see Table 1).

These observed changes in charitable behavior in Southeast Asian countries suggest

that there is more at play in giving than specific religious beliefs. To start with, it
is improbable that the significant drop for Thailand (and Burma) and the rise of
Indonesia on the global scale is caused by sudden changes in the level of faith
since the time interval is simply too short for affecting deeply entrenched beliefs.
At the same time, the variety of countries in the Index’s top 20 positions as per
Table 1 suggests a diversity of faith-based and secular giving traditions shaped by
distinct national contexts. This, prompt us to look closer not only at the drivers
of giving, but also at the socio-cultural, economic and political environments that
enable or inhibit such drivers. As a matter of fact, according to the 2018 World
Giving Index report, people in Thailand were discouraged from donating by very
contextual factors such as the crackdown on financial mismanagement in the
Buddhist temples and more stringent restrictions on donations to monks (CAF 2018;
Ferquenst 2017, 2017a; see also below). Moreover, the same report notes that the
worsening of economic conditions globally is causing a general shift away from
donating money. This is reflected in the overall decrease in the number of people
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

6
reporting making financial contributions to a charity and in the parallel increase in
the number of people reporting helping a stranger and volunteering for two years
in a row (CAF 2017; 2018).

Table 1: Top 20 countries in the CAF 2018 World Giving Index with score and partic-
ipation in giving behaviors
CAF World CAF World
Helping a Donating Volunteering
Countries Giving Index Giving Index
stranger (%) money (%) time (%)
ranking score (%)
Indonesia 1 59 46 78 53
Australia 2 59 65 71 40
New Zealand 3 58 66 68 40
United States
4 58 72 61 39
of America
Ireland 5 56 64 64 40
United
6 55 63 68 33
Kingdom
Singapore 7 54 67 58 39
Kenya 8 54 72 46 45
Myanmar 9 54 40 88 34
Bahrain 10 53 74 53 33
Netherlands 11 51 52 66 37
United Arab
12 51 68 62 23
Emirates
Norway 13 50 54 65 32
Haiti 14 49 62 54 31
Canada 15 49 57 56 33
Nigeria 16 48 71 36 37
Iceland 17 48 50 65 27
Malta 18 47 53 64 25
Liberia 19 47 80 14 47
Sierra Leone 20 47 80 23 37
Source: CAF, 2018: 11

Taking the hint from these global comparisons, this article probes charitable giving
—including monetary, in-kind and in terms of voluntary time devoted to others— in
Thailand linking individual perspectives to structural and contextual factors. It examines
how different groups in society are driven by an array of religious and cultural
beliefs and how the interaction of these with other social structures such as gender
and class results in differentiated giving. In particular, it shows, that besides the
dominant influence of Theravada Buddhism, other religious and spiritual traditions
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

7
shape giving values and practices of minority groups, contributing to the altruistic
stand of the country. The different forms of giving, including individual, corporate
and non-profit, will be discussed and the impact of societal arrangements and
public policies on them will be examined. In doing so, the article exposes a growing
tension between ‘charity’ directed at relieving immediate suffering and ‘philanthropy’
as aiming to improve opportunities for those left behind, and when strategic, to
address the root causes of social problems.1 To delve into these issues, the article
draws on literature as well as on the writer’s own personal observations made while
serving as a philanthropy and international development practitioner in the region.2

Interdependence
and Reciprocity
Shape Benevolence
Thai dominant culture is supportive of individual giving and showing concern for
the others. An early study of philanthropy recalls how water jars were traditionally
placed in villages outside people’s homes for thirsty passersby, and food and shelter
were provided to travelers, even if strangers (APPC, 2001). Other studies note that
Thai people have great social awareness of the interdependence on each other
rather than counting on government interventions, as more formal social protection
benefits were, and still are, insufficient. In the same way children are dependent
on their parents for support during their growth, it is expected that parents will
be dependent on their children for support during their aging. Beyond the nuclear
family, poorer family members are dependent on (and expect) the generosity of
richer relatives (Tayler 1997).

1 A simple example “is the difference between sending pain-

killers to malaria patients, which is charity, versus
educating the public in affected areas or supporting
medical research teams in finding a cure for malaria,
which are philanthropy” (Philanthor 2018).

2 From 1993 to 2015 I served as program officer in the

Ford Foundation’s Jakarta and Manila offices, regional
director of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Southeast
Asia Office in Bangkok, senior health adviser AusAID
and regional director for Southeast and East Asia at
the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
in Singapore.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

8
In a hierarchical society with great wealth divides —in the last decade the GINI
coefficient of Thailand has fluctuated around 4.5 indicating high and persistent
levels of inequity—3 interpersonal dependence is structured along a patron-client
relationship model in which persons of higher status and position are considered
morally responsible for the well-being of those with less fortune, in exchange for
their gratitude, loyalty and/or service. The ‘patron’ is expected to be benevolent
and generous:

He is to provide protection, emotional support, favors,

cover the mistakes of his subordinates and reward them
lavishly. He should help manage their personal affairs
from hospital bills to education costs or to funerals. These
favors may even extend to other members of his subordi-
nate’s family. He should be forgiving, generous with time
and effort to help... He should be generous (Tayler 1997,
p. 29).

A boss should be forgiving of a subordinate who has made

a big mistake. A teacher should be generous with time
and effort in order to help his students. A rich person
should be generous with tips to servants and donations
to beggars (Holmes & Tangtongtavy 1995, p. 31).

In fulfilling social obligations, the patron will collect bun khun or phra khun roughly
defined as “indebted goodness’ and described as “any good thing, help or favor
done by someone which entails gratitude and obligation on the part of the
beneficiary” (Smuckarn 1985:169). Based on these values, a support network has
developed, which is based on the provision of benefits and favors, including financial
and in-kind donations, to be eventually reciprocated in some forms (and not always
in equal manner). In the chain of giving, the grantor by exercising mettaa karunaa
(mercifulness and kindness) places the receiver in the position of being grateful
for the kindness received and obliged to return it, thus exchanging generosity for
kantanyoo rookhun (gratitude and indebtedness) (Komin 1990, Mulder 1996, Titaya
1976).

Much has been written on reciprocity and to what degree bun khun is based
on building a spontaneous sense of gratitude and to what extent it contains a
transactional element. Persons (2016) recommends to view it as a continuum
“of relational behaviors with similar ilk, but with different dynamics” ranging from
‘affectionate bun khun’ or uncalculated acts of kindness to ‘instrumental bun khun’
or acts that expect the receiver to reciprocate in a manner beneficial to the giver,

3 http://thaiembassy.se/wp-content/uploads/pdf.pdf
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

9
with most exchanges being somewhere in the middle and blending these two
opposites.

Irrespective of the interpretations, we can assume that culturally in Thailand, giving pivots
around the paired concepts of obligation and reciprocity and that it is instrumental
in constructing and maintaining social relationships. This, especially, but not only,
between persons of different social status thus contributing to framing and offering
justification for society’s hierarchical order and structures.

Merit Making Drives

Giving in Theravada
Buddhism
Socio-cultural values also influence and are influenced by spiritual and religious
beliefs. As the religious expression of a majority of the Thai population, Theravada
Buddhism, in its culturally-specific syncretistic blend with Brahmanism and animism,
is particularly significant in elevating giving beyond the human sphere. Like all major
religions, Buddhism too envisages generosity or giving, as one of the “perfections”
(paramitas) of Buddhism to be practiced unselfishly and without any expectations
of reward, praise or self-satisfaction.4 Also, as told in the most celebrated jataka
story of Prince Vessantara —the last reincarnation of the Buddha prior to his rebirth
as Siddhattha Gotama, who exemplifies the perfection of generosity— giving is
meant to release greed, attachment and self-clinging (Cone and Gombrich 2011).

In daily life, however, application of religious norms has become impregnated by the
core cultural values of obligation and reciprocity, but now repositioned according
to more intangible fundamentals. Traditionally, local communities were built around
a temple, which functioned as spiritual and social center thanks to the devotees’
charity. Donations enabled the functioning of the temple and its religious activities
and the subsistence of ordained monks and nuns, with some part being returned
to the community through education, health and other social services and provision
of financial support to underprivileged groups (APPC 2001). In the course of time,
urbanization and other socio-economic transformations have changed the spatial
arrangements, but have left untouched the reciprocity notion at the core of the
temple-community relationship. To this day, the monastic order (sangha) relies on

4 https://www.learnreligions.com/charity-in-bud-
dhism-449556
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

10
the generosity of the laypersons for its maintenance and undertaking of religious
duties, while the laypersons expect to receive in exchange spiritual fulfillment and,
at times, socio-economic support (Swearer 2010).

This mutually beneficial interdependency is based on the premise that, by undertaking

merit-making, especially of the type of da-namaya or meritorious action of giving,
the devotees can access spiritual power believed to be associated with the
monkhood. This, because of the monks’ adherence to the teachings of the
Buddha’s (dharma) as well as the charisma some of them derive from psychic
and healing powers (Swearer 2010). An extended body of work since the 1950s
by both Thai and foreign scholars (Benedict 1952; Keynes 1983; Klausner 1971;
Saiyasak 2006; Terwiel 1975), documents and explains how this acquisition of
spiritual benefits through reciprocity is linked to culturally-defined syncretic
interpretations of the core doctrines of kamma (Sanskrit, karma) rebirth (sam -
. sara),
and merit (puñña in Pali and bun in Thai):

Reciprocal exchange emerges from the donor-recipient

relationship found in merit-making rituals. The layperson-donor
offers material gifs for the benefit of the monastic order.
In return, the virtuous power of the sangha engenders a
spiritual reward of merit (puñña), thereby enhancing the
donor’s balance of kamma/karma, which in turn, affects
the status of the person’s rebirth on the cosmic scale.
All ritual situations, in which presentations are made to
the monastic order, function in this way. These include
acts as frequent and informal as giving food to monks on
their morning alms rounds (pindapata), to the annual and
formal presentation of new robes and other gift to the
sangha at the end of the monsoon rains retreat after the
October full-moon day (Swearer 2010, p. 19).

Through the practice of merit-making or tham bun in Thai language, devotees can
accumulate good deeds and thus good karma for themselves and their older rel-
atives and reduce demerit (bap) and thus bad karma. By doing so, they hope to
positively affect their present life as well as the cycle of rebirth and reincarnations
of future lives. In the present, Thai Buddhists derive happiness from giving. Recent
studies by NIDA show that giving, especially when in terms of objects or money
(rather than volunteering) leads to a higher happiness level than not giving at all
and that religious giving enhances the happiness level. Buddhists who regularly give
for religious purposes and particularly those dedicating offerings to monks reach
the highest happiness level since it is believed that such acts provide great merit
(Pholphirul 2014, Apinunmahakul 2014).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

11
Besides happiness, merit-making, as part and in addition to religious observance,
is meant to bring peace and wealth to the devotees and their families; help them
overcome obstacles or misfortunes such as accidents and diseases; and improve
their destiny after death, eventually enabling them to reach nirvana as the ultimate
goal of the Buddhist path and the release from rebirths in sam -
. sara:

A gift is given, an offering is made, a sum of money is

donated in the expectation of some kind of return, vary-
ing from an immediate and practical benefit to a general
sense of well-being or even spiritual attainment (Swearer
2010, p. 22).

Diversity in Buddhist
Merit-Making
The values associated with the concept of generosity in Thai Theravada Buddhism
are translated in a multitude of merit making acts that can be organized in five
main categories:

1) Direct material and financial support to feed and dress

the monks and for the maintenance and construction of
temples.

2) Ordination into the monkhood for males. As women,

are not being allowed to be ordained in Thailand, they
can only attain indirect merit through the ordination of
their sons and grandsons).

3) Observance of the five Buddhist precepts forbidding

killing, lying, stealing, committing adultery and drinking
intoxicants and Buddhist days and performance of sacred
rituals and ceremonies.

4) Implementations of tasks in the presence of monks or

in religious rituals.

5) Provision of support to parents, elders and charity causes

such as for the welfare of the poor, disabled and orphans
(Summarized from Saiyasak 2006, pp. 6-11).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

12
These multiple merit-making efforts are viewed as personal in nature benefiting
and giving happiness to those who conducts them. In the words of Tambiah (1970,
p. 54): “from the doctrinal point of view the quest for salvation is a strictly
individualistic pursuit”. After earning the merit for oneself, the merit-maker can
eventually ‘reallocate’ some of it to his/her parents and elders, even if deceased.
At the same time, merit making activities in their actualization may involve larger
social units, ranging from the family and the household to the extended kin group
and the entire village (Tambiah 1970; Saiyasak 2006).

How people prioritize depends also on the context in which giving practices
are embedded. During his fieldwork in the 1960s, Tambiah asked villagers in the
predominantly rural and relatively underprivileged region of Northeastern Thailand
(Isan) to rank the priorities of various merit acts. They ranked giving donations to
build a temple as the most meritorious act while meditation was in their view the
least meritorious. This even if in contradiction with canonical Buddhism (Pa-li canon),
which praises meditation (patiba-t bucha) more than the giving of material things
(a-misa bucha) as an act of worship (Tambiah 1970; Feungfusakul 2020).

In the Isan mix-culture area bordering Laos and Cambodia merit-making is epitomized
by collective ceremonies. Local communities traditionally follow a calendrical cycle
of twelve collective ceremonies of both Buddhist and pre-Buddhist origin called
Prapheni Heet Sibsong.5 The ceremonial cycle refers to the agricultural seasons
and provides a spiritual orientation for the community that emphasizes harmonious
co-existence among the villagers and interdependence between laity and monastic
order. The ceremonies are an opportunity for the monastic order to fulfil its material
needs of food, shelter and clothing from community donations and volunteering.
At the same time, they enhance “the potentiality of accumulation of merit” for the
devotees as their participation in these time-consuming and expensive ceremonies
is viewed as “an act of merit-making symbolizing self-sacrifice, dedicated effort and
devotional zeal” (Visuddhangkoon 2015, p. 4, 9)

Foremost among these collective merit-making rituals, is the kathina ceremony.

This cycle’s closing event, at times lasting few days, consist of offering of robes
(kathin) and other necessities to the monks, including banknotes attached to a
wishing tree, for the primary support of the monastery. Conducted annually, also in
other parts of Thailand, in the four weeks following the end of the Buddhist Lent,
kathina is believed to provide high-value merit to all those involved and particularly
its sponsors:

5 For a detailed description of the 12 ceremonies see

Visuddhangkoon 2015.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

13
Kathin sponsors, the owners or lords of the ceremonies,
receive merit (bun) and honour (kiat) through their
generosity to Buddhist monks. In ritual they show (sadaeng)
and build (sang) transcendent virtue (barami…), which is
synonymous with credibility… Urban kathin sponsors are
commonly said to gain the trust (khwamwai-cai, lit., the
quality of being ‘put in the heart’) of villagers when they
offer kathin to village monks… (Gray 1991: 46)

The thus acquired credibility has political and economic value and is of interest also
to sponsors from outside the local community. In spiritual terms, this reflects the
sponsors’ traditional thought, aligned with the normative unselfishness ideal, that
anonymity enhances merit, but also their higher regard for upcountry monasteries
considered more sacral than urban ones in their closer adherence to the monastic
ideal (Swearer 2010). More pragmatic reasons have, however, also been noticed.
Collective ceremonies and especially kathina are an expression of cultural politics,
with politicians and business ventures exploiting the occasion to gain much needed
popular support through their sponsorship. A study, for instance, documents as a
well-connected commercial bank expanded its presence in the Northeast through
kathina sponsorship (Gray 1991). More recently, it has been observed that local
women with foreign spouses living abroad or in between countries invest heavily in
such ceremonies as a sign of belonging and also to express an improved economic
status (Lapanun 2019).

More generally, the individual and social dimensions of merit-making are both affected
by social determinants like gender, socio-economic status and ethnicity resulting
in differentiated practices. Starting with gender, the patriarchal underpinning of
societal arrangements entrusts men with a leading role in merit-making ceremonies
while women are consigned to a supportive role when not precluded from the
activities. Women are assigned to preparing and giving the daily food offerings to the
monks and undertaking other domestic tasks in performing rituals. To compensate
for their being barred from ordination and thus for their inability to earn merit
for themselves and their parents that way, they are expected to show filial piety
through provision of household support even when they no longer live together.
Popular wisdom considers women to be in greater need of merit because of their
supposedly subordinate gender —this even if “Buddha himself acknowledged that
there is no spiritual difference between men and women”—6 and therefore expect
them to express greater devotion and give more (Kirsh 1972).

6 https://www.chiangmaicitylife.com/citynews/features/
white-robes-saffron-dreams-a-look-at-gender-inequality-
in-thai-buddhism/. See also https://www.chiangmaic-
itylife.com/citylife-articles/breaking-through-bud-
dhism/
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

14
Poorer people are also considered in greater need of merit making, their underprivileged
position in this world being again taken as an indication of lower stand on the spiritual
scale, which in turn requires greater acts of beneficence to be upturned. In the
Northeast, the intense merit quest of Isaan villagers has been explained in terms
of their anticipation to reduce farm hardship and uplift their lower socio-economic
status (Keynes 1983). More generally, past studies indicated that poor gave
proportionally more than wealthier people in an effort to improve their present cosmic
conditions and escape a similar fate in a next life (Pfanner and Ingersoll 1962).
Notwithstanding the specificity of the proposed cultural explanation, this pattern
is per se not exceptional as also in other countries wealth is not a direct predictor
of giving (Sciortino 2017). However, for the public, it is the absolute and not so
much the proportional value of resources invested that get attention since wealth
is “a sign of merit already made; a reward for merit already made; and a means for
making more merit” (Pfaffer and Ingersoll 1962, p. 356). This implies, that while the
poor are supposed to donate to improve their conditions, the rich are expected to
significantly engage in merit-making not only to continuously maintain and enhance
their position, but to corroborate in the eyes of society their privileged status in
both the material and the intangible world.

Merit-making behavior is also shaped by ethnicity. The vivacity of collective merit-making

practices of the Isaan population in the Northeast has already been mentioned as
being more pronounced and with more nuances than in other parts of Thailand.
Among the Sino-Thai communities across Thailand with their particular blend of
Thai Buddhism inclusive of Theravada as well as Mahayana Buddhism and Chinese
Confucianism, merit making practices also have their particularities. While they show
similar patterns to the overall Thai Buddhist population. there is greater emphasis
on giving to charity, particularly for educational purposes, rather than offering alms
to monks especially among the younger generation. Family solidarity and provision
of financial support to parents and the extended clan is also stressed As the
Confucian codes emphasize loyalty and filial piety (Basham 2001; Morita 2019;
Feungfusakul 2020).

A study of Chinese temples in Phuket (Kataoka 2012) shows that merit-making

for the Chinese community there has indeed wider connotations ranging from
religious and ritual-oriented activities, like attending and making contributions to
Chinese temples; supporting Mahayana chanting of Chinese sutras in the Hokkien
dialect (songkeng ritual) as well as Theravada Buddhism chanting in Pali (suat mon
ritual); and giving to the Sangha, to undertaking philanthropist-oriented activities
such as donating to foundations, to native place associations (Hokkien, Hailam,
etc.), to Chinese schools and hospitals as well as to charity organizations under
Royal Patronage like the Thai Red Cross Society. According to the study’s author,
this is also related to the fact that in Thailand, Chinese temples, formally are not
considered “religious places” and fall fully under the Ministry of Interior as they
are not registered with the Religious Affairs Department (RAD) and are generally
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

15
staffed by laypersons. In turn, this foster the perception that merit-making does not
need to be centered on sangha affiliated temples and monks and that it works also
with volunteering and donating to non-religious causes. In this context, giving is far
from anonymous, with names of donors publicly listed in the order of the amount
donated and framed pictures of major benefactors hanged on the premises of the
institutions they contributed to, thus putting social pressure on the wealthier to
contribute significantly. These customary practices to recognize beneficence are also
common in Chinese communities in other parts of Thailand. For Bangkok, it was
noted already decades ago that in the Thai Chinese community “public recognition,
community goodwill and some fame can be gained by donating money” and that
charity is a path to social prominence and viceversa (Coughlin 1960, p. 57)

Merit Making in
Other Religious
Traditions
Interestingly, the concept and practice of merit-making extend beyond Buddhism,
assuming original connotations according to the setting. Irrespective of their specific
doctrines, diverse religious traditions seem to find common ground in “tham bun” as a
Thai idiom denoting merit-generating rituals and conduct for general religious
activity (Joll 2014; Keyes 1983). Various studies of both Catholicism and
Protestantism in Thailand, for instance, highlight how the practice of merit-making
has been transposed across religious and cultural boundaries becoming a dominant
feature of Christian religious activities (Cohen 1994; Hughes 1984). In spite of the
distinct visions of the afterlife, Thai Christians do seek to achieve better conditions
in this life and beyond as a reward for their merit-making and their keeping to
religious precepts. Even if missionaries may not always approve of what they see
as an “indigenization” of Christian religion, the general principle of an individualistic
karmic path requiring one to do charitable deeds to attain benefits in return is well
ingrained among believers. These deeds may be somewhat more oriented towards
helping others rather than focused on religious acts for inner fulfilment, but in
Hughes’ (1984, p. 30) words “both reasons for making merit are found among both
Christians and Buddhists. The difference between them is one of degree rather
than kind”.

Merit-making is also common among the Muslim Thai and Thai speaking Malay
communities in Southern Thailand. Although some fundamentalist groups are aiming
to “purify” Muslims practices from what are considered “extraneous” elements
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

16
of the Islamic faith, most believers consider merit-making own to their faith and
tradition. As one of the informants in Joll’s research on Muslim merit-making in
Southern Thailand (2012) puts it:

You know, merit is a Thai religious thing to do—regard-

less of whether you are a Muslim or a Buddhist. We must
make merit! If we do it with our heart, we believe that
everything will be good for us—no matter whether we are
a Muslim or Buddhist (Joll 2012, p. 85).

Through a process of syncretic cultural and linguistic merging over the course of
the last hundred years, merit-making has become embedded in Malay and Islamic
terms. In this case, merit is generated through the enactment of locally occurring
Malay adat (traditional custom), and universal normative amal ‘ibadat (worship)
prescriptions for the purpose of a better life, death and afterlife until the Day
of Judgment and for the benefit of deceased relatives and friends. In Southern
Thailand, variations in the types of merit-making are many and so are the terms,
of Sankrit, Thai, Malay and Arabic origin, used to refer to them (see Table 2 and
3). Common across these various forms is that to earn salvific merit, one has to
do more than what is already beholden by religious prescriptions. In relation to
charity, sadaka (in Arabic sadaqah) or voluntary giving to people, both Muslims
and non-Muslims, to whom one is not indebted, is considered a supererogatory
act that earns the maker merit (Joll 2012; McCleary 2007). Along these voluntary,
merit making, contributions, Muslim Malay in Southern Thailand perform many other
charity acts both voluntary and mandatory as prescribed by Islam.

Table 2: Thai and Pattani Malay Merit-Making Terms

English Thai (Th.) Pattani Malay (PM.)
Merit Bun, phonlabun Pahala, bajuke
Merit-making Tham bun
Prayer (salat) Lamaat Semaye
Reading the Qur’ an Aan al-Qur’ an Baco kure
Acts of charity Tham than Sedekoh
Fasting Thue sin ot Poso
Sewaeng bun, tham haj,
Pilgrimage Wa’ haj, wa’ haj, gi Mekkoh
pai Mekkoh
Source: Joll 2012, p.85
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

17
Table 3: Thai and Pattani Malay Terms for Social and Merit Making Feasts
English Thai (Th.) Pattani Malay (PM.)
Feat Tham bun, kin bun Wa’ make
Circumcision feast Tham bun khaw sunnat Make pulot
Hair-cutting, and naming feast Aqiqoh Make pulot, aqiqoh
Wedding feast Ngaan liang Walimah, make pulot
Tham bun samrap phu sia
Funeral feast Wa’ arwoh, wa’ ngatek
chiwit
Tham bun mawlid,
Mawlid feast Wa’ mawlid
ngaan mawlid
Housewarming feast Kuen baan mai Naik rumoh baru
Source: Joll 2012, p.85

Muslim Giving
In-Between Duty
and Solidarity
The Muslim population, a minority in most of the country except for the four
southernmost provinces, has a well-established tradition of giving grounded in Islamic
theology. The Qur’an stresses the importance of generous acts “suggesting that
God’s mercy and protection is available not only through prayers, but through the
involvement of giving as well” (Hasan 2006, p.2). With giving, believers can show
gratitude to the Almighty, purify their surplus earnings and express solidarity to the
neediest members of the ummah (Muslim community).

Broadly speaking, Islam distinguishes between giving to meet religious obligations

and giving performed as a voluntary charitable act. Under the first category,
Muslims are obliged to support indigent relatives and pay an obligatory charitable
wealth tax (zakat-ul-mal; ‘zakat’ afterwards) to care for the poor and those in
need. According to Islamic jurisprudence, as interpreted by the Sunni branch of
Islam dominant in Thailand, all sane and adult Muslims who possess wealth beyond
a certain prescribed minimum (Nisab) are expected to pay zakat of about 2,5
percent of their savings to be used to uplift the poor and help those who are
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

18
troubled and in hardship.7 This ‘redistribution’ tax should in principle be collected
and managed by the Islamic State, but when this is not an option, alternative
arrangements may emerge. Neighboring Muslim-majority countries Malaysia and
Indonesia, have recently seen the establishment of semi-government organizations
and the development of independent philanthropic organizations specifically devoted
to the professional management of zakat in support of a wide range of charity,
development and social justice programs. This is not the case in Thailand, where a
national system for managing the zakat has yet to materialize and collection and
distribution of individual contributions remains informal and traditionally structured.
Generally, Muslims in Thailand calculate by themselves the amount of zakat to
be donated and give it directly to disadvantaged families in their network on the
occasion of the end of the fasting period or Ramadan (so-called zakat Fitrah).
More rarely, they trust mosques or religious educational institutions in their
community to distribute the zakat on their behalf, and few also give it to Islamic
organizations. In Bangkok, the most prominent are the Islamic Bank of Thailand, the
Islamic Committee of Bangkok, and the Foundation of Islamic Centre of Thailand
(Sitisan 2010). Studies conducted so far on zakat management have concluded
that few pay zakat formally and that not many institutions have the capacity to
manage funds efficiently (Rimpeng 2018) —a feature this last that, as we will see
later, is also shared by religious institutions of other faiths. It is also noticed that
centralistic efforts by the Chularajamontri and the National Islamic Committee, as
the highest Muslim authorities in Thailand, to establish a Charity and Zakat Fund
have not resulted in the expected accumulation of funds as religious leaders at
lower administrative levels prefer to directly care for the needy in their community
(Pitsuwan 1988).

The role of mosques and religious educational institutions is greater with regards
to voluntary giving, as they are the main recipients and managers of cash, in-kind
or usufruct grants and charitable endowments (waqf or plural awqaf) given by
wealthier members of the community for the benefit of the ummah. More particularly,
the waqf typically involves donating a plot of land, building or other assets in
perpetuity for a specific religious or charitable purpose. In the first case, the waqf
is used for the establishment, maintenance and running of religious institutions
including mosques and Islamic schools and cemeteries, while in the second it
foresees funding public services in disadvantaged areas from education and health
services to infrastructures (Sindima 2018).

7 There are eight categories of people who can receive

zakat: the poor, those in difficulties, zakat adminis-
trators; “those whose hearts are to be reconciled” or
potential and new converts; hose in bondage (slaves
and captives); the debt-ridden; in the cause of God;
and the wayfarers (Sindima 2018).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

19
In Thailand, it is common for the land for mosques and Muslim cemeteries to have
been given as waqf, sometimes as far as centuries ago. Mosques and Islamic
boarding schools and other education institutes also receive productive land to
help them earn some income for their maintenance and expansion. In the four
Southern provinces, waqf is in the form of open land, houses, apartments, and
rubber and coconut plantations. Transfer is customarily conducted on the bases
of trust, with the imam (religious leader) receiving it informally on behalf of the
institution. This lack of documentation at times causes conflict with the donor’s
heirs and other third parties, including the State (Prapertchob 1991). The diversity
of waqf arrangements further complicate oversight. Contrary to general assumption,
the Muslim population in Thailand is far from homogenous with Malay Muslim in
the South, Cham Muslim, Thai ethnic Muslims and Indian Muslim predominantly in
Central Thailand and Hui, Pakistanis and Afghans predominantly in the Northeast.
Besides ethnic diversity, Muslims also show diversity in their belonging to the four
different Sunni schools of thoughts, namely Shafii, Hanafi, Hanbali and Maliki. These
schools apply different sub-doctrines to regulate the endowing of land, property and
finance and its scopes and beneficiaries (Brown 2014). Irrespective of the cultural
and theological differences, too detailed to be reported here, we can generalize
saying that for the Muslim community in Thailand like in other parts of the world
“the Waqf endowment is a process of anticipating and managing the future: a
hereafter future for the person making the waqf endowment, and za worldly future
for the person benefiting from it” (Raissouni, 2001).

Faith Drives Individual

Giving to Religious
Causes
The multiplicity of religious and cultural giving practices translates into significant
financial resources and specific giving patterns. Some indications of the amounts
at stake are provided by the National Statistical Office (NSO) since its annual
nationally-representative socio-economic household survey includes information
on giving among the data on household expenditures. As extrapolated by the Thai
Development Research Institute (TDRI) these data show that the total amount of
household giving has increased from 65,980 million baht in 2011 to 88,416 million baht
in 2016 or about 0.6 of the gross domestic product (GDP) which is higher than the
expenditure budget of the Ministry of Social Development and Security in the same
year namely 10,379 million baht or 0.4 percent of GDP (in Chirapaisarnkul 2019).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

20
Figure 1: Total Accumulated Amount of Household Giving in Thailand 2011-2016
Budget of Ministry of Social Development and Human Security = 10,379 MB
100,000
86,295 88,416

80,000 72,695 73,473 75,760

65,980
Million Baht

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Source: TDRI (calculation based on the Household socio-economic survey conducted by the National Statistical Office as displayed in
power point presentation by Chirapaisarnkul 2019)

In giving, people have a wide range of possible beneficiaries at their disposal. Besides
giving to other individuals they can choose among the typical charitable and
philanthropic institutions common to most countries such as faith-based charities,
international and national non-for-profit organizations (NPOs) or civil society organizations
(CSOs), social enterprises and foundations or opt for supporting institutions specific
to Thailand like the royal foundations and projects (Wattanasiritham, 2007). Yet, not
all possible choices receive the same consideration. Faith is a fundamental driver
of charitable giving in general (Apinunmahakul 2014), but, as can be expected also
from the previous sections, it does result in a clear preference for giving to religious
causes and institutions, when not donating to relatives and social contacts.

This is clearly reflected in the NSO data: among the households that give —as it
needs to be recognized here that a large proportion does not do so— the great
majority donates to religious causes of various denominations and this has been
a constant across the years up to the most recently published household survey
(NSO 2018). Kanchanachitra (2014) using a sample of 39,513 households from the 2011
NSO survey with giving activities in the month preceding the interview, shows that
of these the vast majority or 93 percent contributed financially to religious activities.
The other two identified patterns of giving, namely giving of money or material to
persons outside of the households and donations to charitable institutions scored
much lower. Only 20.2 percent of the selected household sample gave based on
personal relationships, assumingly mostly to parents, children or other relatives
who did not reside together, and part of the donated amount could actually entail
economic transactions. The most formal form of giving was less practiced, with
only 17.8 percent of the household sample donating to charities, foundations and
non-profit organizations (Kanchanachitra 2014, p. 5).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

21
Interestingly, in terms of amount of money given by each household, people tend
to honor personal connections. As discussed also before, it is customary for Thais
to support less advantaged relatives and to provide financial contributions towards
the costs of marriages, funerals and other life events of friends and colleagues
(Phaholyothin 2017). As Table 5 shows, for the same 2011 NSO household sample
mentioned above, the amount given to other individuals is much higher than that
given to religious institutions or causes (in the table “merit”) and donations to
non-religious institutions—737 baht, 250 baht and 25 baht per month per household
respectively (Kanchanachitra 2014, p. 6). This pattern also results from the most
recent NSO survey (2018) and is in line with the general preference in Southeast
Asia countries for giving more substantially to individuals known to the donor rather
than to organizations, with the possible exception of religious institutions (Sciortino
2017). That said, some caution is recommended in interpreting the data, since as
noted above the amount granted to other individuals may include payments other
than actual giving, such as support to parents to raise one’s own child(ren).

Table 4: Average amount of money expended in each category of giving (in baht), 2011.
Sent out Merit Donation
Only Only Only
All households All households All households
households that send households that send households that send
out money out money out money
737 3,650 250 269 25 139
n = 39,513 n = 8,922 n = 39,513 n = 36,848 n = 39,513 n = 8,674
Source: NSO Household Socio-Economic Survey in Kanchanachitra 2014, p. 6

The same study of Kanchanachitra (2014) also notes that different household
characteristics affect giving and further diversify giving patterns. In particular, larger
size households gave more overall than smaller size households. Interestingly,
however, if households had to attend to more children, their giving was generally
less. Furthermore, households with older household heads gave a lower amount to
other individuals, but contributed relatively more to religious causes and organizations;
female-headed households gave less overall than male-headed ones; and rural
households spent more on religious causes than their urban counterparts (for more
details see Table 5).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

22
Table 5: Household characteristics by giving category
Send out Merit Donation
Characteristics Total
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Average number of household
3.16 2.79 3.26 3.21 2.57 3.21 3.15
members
Average age of head 52.2 46.4 54.4 53.1 48.0 53.2 52.7
Sex of head (%)
Male 66.3 73.5 64.4 66.3 65.9 65.5 66.4
Female 33.8 36.5 45.6 33.7 34.1 34.5 33.6
Residence (%)
Urban 36.2 49.6 32.8 35.0 52.6 38.3 35.7
Rural 63.8 50.4 67.2 65.0 47.4 61.7 64.3
Average per capital household
8,448 11,423 7,802 8,428 8,713 11,423 7,802
income (Baht/month)
Marital status of head (%)
Single 8.2 11.3 7.4 7.2 20.9 7.8 8.3
Married 69.1 75.8 67.4 70.1 55.3 69.8 69.0
Divorced 22.7 12.9 25.2 22.6 23.4 22.4 22.7
Education of head (%)
Primary 63.8 46.2 68.2 64.7 51.3 57.8 65.1
Secondary 21.6 32.7 18.8 21.2 27.0 23.4 21.2
University 8.7 17.2 6.6 8.7 9.6 13.4 7.7
Other 5.9 3.9 6.4 5.4 12.1 5.4 6.0
Average number of children
0.65 0.46 0.70 0.66 0.46 0.62 0.65
underage 15
Average number of elderly
0.51 0.25 0.60 0.54 0.41 0.55 0.52
age 60 and over
Number of Observations 39,513 8,922 30,591 36,848 2,665 8,674 30,839
Source: NSO Household Socio-Economic Survey in Kanchanachitra 2014, p. 6

Individual preference for religious institutions as beneficiaries is also reflected in

a 2012 survey of Assumption University in Greater Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Khon
Kaen, Chonburi and Songkhla (in Chhina, Petersik, and Evans 2014). Temples and
other religious institutions are the most frequent recipients, most trusted charitable
organizations and those reputed most effective as charities (see Table 6).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

23
Adapting Chhina, Petersik, and Evans’ conclusion (2014, p. 91) we could thus say that:

Giving is very much part of Thai culture [and here I would

add grounded in the principle of reciprocity] and linked to
religious beliefs in making merit or tham bun;

Charitable giving is done in an ad-hoc manner dominated

by individual giving which is motivated largely through
personal connections or affiliations;

A large part of charitable giving goes to religious causes [and

organizations, and less to] projects under royal patronage,
and well-known charities or foundations.

It is also important to note that individual giving is a matter of habit and trust.
In donating and making their choices, individual contributors rarely question the
recipient’s accountability. As we will see in the following description of the main
charity and philanthropic institutions operating in Thailand, organizations generally do
not publish financial reports and the public does not know much about the funds
involved and even less on their use and impacts.

Table 6: Breakdown of Social Giving in Thailand, 2012

Most frequent beneficiaries of giving
Temples/religious institutions 93.3%
Educational institutions 83.4%
Hospitals and health organizations 74.7%
Community organizations 65.2%
Royal-affiliated projects 49.6%
Most trusted charitable organizations
Temples/religions institutions 47.9%
Royal-affiliated projects 23.3%
Educational institutions 15.8%
Hospitals and health organizations 15.6%
Community organizations 4.3%
Most effective charitable organizations
Temples/religions institutions 31.6%
Royal-affiliated projects 20.4%
Educational institutions 20.4%
Hospitals and health organizations 14.2%
Community organizations 8.5%
Source: Assumption University of Thailand: Survey Results Project regarding opinions and behaviors of citizens toward social giving;
population sample from Greater Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Khon Khaen, Chonburi and Songhkla 2012.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

24

Religious Institutions
Under the Spotlight
The popularity of religious institutions as beneficiaries of individual donations does
not translate in accurate data on their resources and very little is known on the
value of the accrued donations in cash and in kind. We only have some figures for
the Buddhist temples, which, as of September 2018, counted more than 41,000 with
approximately 335,000 clergy (USDOS 2019, p. 4). Temples are estimated to receive
between 100-120 billion baht in donations each year. Of the average amount of 3.2
million baht received by individual temples in 2017, 2.8 million baht were spent for
religious and social activities implying a significant circulation and accumulation of
resources (TDRI, 2017; Kemasingki and Songmuang 2018).8

Typically, as can be derived also from the previous section, donations are from
individuals rather than from institutions. Unlike in the U.S, in Thailand, like in the rest
of Southeast Asia, family and corporate foundations, even when motivated by religious
convictions, do not prioritize funding to religious causes. Among the exceptions
are the Buddharaksa Foundation of the Chearavanont family and the related DT
Group in Thailand, which has an explicit focus on religion and funds Buddhist
schools, monasteries, and nunneries (Thai Giving, 2017) and the Nana family of
Indian descent whose Tuan Suvannasat Foundation supports Koran education and
preservation of Muslim arts, its Waqf Fund funds mosques and Islamic schools, and
its Zakat Fund helps orphans and victims of natural disasters and of the conflict
in Southern Thailand (Mukem 2018).

The other important source of support is government funding. Registered temples

can request budget from the government through the National Office of Buddhism
(NOB) an independent state agency under direct supervision of the prime minister,
for restoration or maintenance of temples, educational activities, or other activities
for the “dissemination of Buddhism”. It is estimated that every year temples receive
an additional 3.4 billion baht a year in state funding for temple renovation (TDRI
2017). More generally, in the 2017-2018 fiscal year, NOB was entrusted with 4.9
billion baht in government funding for Buddhism-related causes and organizations,
of which 1.9 billion baht went to empowerment and human capital development

8 See https://www.bltbangkok.com/CoverStory/มหากาพย์เงิ นทอนวัด

เงิ นทำ�บุ ญไปไหน
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

25
projects, 1.6 baht for personnel administration; 1.2 billion baht for education projects,
including scripture and bookkeeping schooling for monks and novices, and 256
million baht for Deep South conflict resolution and development projects (USDS
2018).

Government funding is also granted to religious groups associated with one of the
five officially recognized religions (besides Buddhism, Islam, Brahmanism-Hinduism,
Sikh and Christianity), but at a much smaller scale. If registered, this time with the
Religious Affairs Department (RAD), they can receive state benefits that include access
to state subsidies, exemption from property and income taxes, and preferential
allocation of resident visas for the registered organization’s foreign officials. Official
data report 3,679 registered mosques in 67 of the country’s 76 provinces, of which
3,121 are located in the 14 southern provinces; 16 Sikh temples of which only 10 are
active and five main Christian umbrella organizations9 with more than 5000 churches
(USDS 2010). For the 2017-2018 fiscal year, the management of the budget of
about 410 million baht for non-Buddhist initiatives was transferred from RAD to
MOI. Of these 333 million baht supported strategic planning for religious, art, and
cultural development and 18 million baht was for the maintenance and restoration
of non-Buddhist religious sites. For the Muslim community, the government provides
funding for the chularajmontri’s annual per diem, Islamic educational institutions, the
construction of mosques, and participation in the Hajj (USDS 2018). Similarly, for
other faiths, state support is in the form of reparation and construction of religious
buildings and contribution to social activities.

The major share of resources for religious institutions, however, remains donations by
the community and increasingly, income-generating assets and payments for delivery
of social services. Catholicism and Protestantism in particular have a long tradition of
provision of education and health services, which generally charge fees to the users,
albeit often at a subsidized price. There are two private Christian universities and 10
Catholic grade schools open to the public (USDS 2018) and an extended network of
generic and specialist hospitals of various types managed by diverse congregations
such as Saint Louis Hospital, Bangkok Mission Hospital, Camillian Hospital, and Bang-
kok Christian Hospital just to name the main ones. Incomes from these activities
are scrutinized as profit-making may contravene government rules concerning the
organizations’ charitable status and, if found not to be reinvested for social purposes,
require separate institutional arrangements (see also later).

9 These are: Catholic Mission of Bangkok (Roman Catholic);

Church of Christ in Thailand (Protestant); Evangelical
Fellowship of Thailand (Protestant); Saha Christchak
(Baptist); and Seventh-day Adventist Church of Thai-
land.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

26
As awareness raises over the significance and diversity of resources managed by
religious institutions, questions are starting to emerge about the ways they raise
and use the individual donations as well as the public funds and the tax-exempted
incomes they receive. Even if widely trusted by individual donors, religious
organizations do not always have transparent financial and management systems.
TDRI research in 2012 showed that most temples had inadequate systems
for managing their substantial money and assets. Their financial practices did not meet
accounting standards and only a tiny minority followed NOB rules (see Table 8; TDRI
2017). Only in 2015 temples have been made to publish their financial statements,
and implementation and oversight remains weak. The separation line between
temple’s funds and private or personal assets acquired by monks during their
time in the monkhood is also blurred (Ferquest 2017; 2018). For donations, there
is no tight control of the donors’ information causing a major leak in the Thai
tax system since donors can get deductions by donating to religious institutions
(see below). Following a number of high profiles fraud and embezzlement cases
there have been calls for greater regulatory control of both temples and NOB.
Most recently, the police have been investigating the misuse of governmental
subsidies by NOB officers and Buddhist temples, which lead to the spectacular
arrest of five renown monks in May 201810 and successive arrests of both public
employees and religious personnel and to the amendment of the Sangha
Act to entrust the power to appoint and remove the twenty members of the Sangha
Council to H.M. the King rather than to other council members (USDS 2018).

Table 7: Temples’ Financial Management Practices 2012 (%)

Financial Management Practices Percentage
Records income and expenses everyday 74.3%
Makes income report every month 25.6%
Monitors and investigates accounting 59.8%
Has system to make a decision on investment of temple grounds 36% h
Makes report according to NOB rules 3.7%
Source: TDRI 2017

Similarly, as previously mentioned, not many mosques and Islamic institutions

have the capacity to manage donation and zakat funds efficiently. Although most
mosques have rules in places, they rarely report their financial status to the Provincial
and National Islamic Committee as expected by law (Prapertchob 1991; Sitisan 2010;
Rimpeng 2018) There is just no way of knowing from where donations and zakat
are received and how they are used as most institutions pool all the resources

10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–2018_Thai_temple_
fraud_investigations
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

27
together, with no separate accounting streams, which makes difficult to trace the
original source and the specific expenditures. Worries are rife that accumulated
resources are not always used for the intended purposes nor promptly disbursed
and, when in the form of assets as it is generally the case for waqf, they remain
unproductive for long periods of times. There have been talks of passing a Zakat
Funds Bill, which would foresee the establishment of a national Zakat Funds
Administrative Office, registered as juristic persons, to monitor the activities of
Muslim charities and administer funds in in separate accountable streams, but it is
yet to be realized (Dorloh 2015; Rimpeng 2018).

Concerns have also been raised on the sectarian inclination of religious institutions.
While many do work for the broader society, there is a tendency to employ resources
to advance the congregation’s well-being, or to proselytize. Christian groups have a
long tradition of promoting their faith through educational and health activities. In
Thailand, temple assistance mainly concerns the Buddhist community, and mosques’
resources focus on Muslim communities (Prapertchob, 1991). Among Islamic giving
options, zakat is the most exclusive due to the general public understanding that it
should be used to assist only Muslim beneficiaries as defined by Islamic jurisprudence.
(Sciortino 2017). The Thai government has also shown suspicion that zakat funds and
other donations to Muslim religious institutions are used to support the insurgency
in the South and Islamist causes abroad. Less talked about is the possible misuse
of funds for radical Buddhist movements with links to Srilanka and Myanmar (DW
2018; Lehr 2019).

Among the public and in the media an increasingly heated topic is the actual destination
of the funds and whether they should be devoted to purely religious causes or
serving social aims and if both to what proportion. In Buddhist circles, there are
criticism that the social function of temples is diminishing, while resources increase:

Temples used to be the heart of every Thai community,

They were schools for children, hotels for travelers, venues
for community events, and the monks acted as counselor
and mediator, even healers. Young boys and girls would
come to temple fairs where they would flirt and fall in
love and old people would congregate in the temple to so-
cialise and help out. It was the soul of the village. Today,
you see more and more empty temples, yet they are more
often than not richer than they have ever been. Temples
no longer have a social function within the communities
they serve yet they have turned into impressive looking
ornaments, funded by the faithful, if not devout (Apinya
Fuengfusakul in Kemasingki and Songmuang 2018).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

28
Some wonders whether merit-making money may better be spent for addressing
social needs rather than “building bigger Buddha statues, grander temples and
taller pagodas” (Rojanaphruk 2018). Decrying of religious commercialism, from the
pre-packaged yellow buckets full of brand products for the monks in supermarkets
to instant gratification and recognition for the wealthy patrons, has become a
popular refrain (Fernquest 2015). The Dhammakaya movement and its temple in
Pathum Thani Province —one of the richest in the kingdom— has been at the
center of much controversy for its display of opulence and the “mass production
of a neoliberal, commodified (global) religiosity”, styled on the model of evangelical
mega churches, albeit some have argued that besides moral considerations, also
politics is at play (see further Taylor 2017; 2018; Figure 1).

Figure 2: The Pagoda of More than One Million Golden Buddha at Dhammakaya Temple

Source: Pixabay (in Taylor 2017)

Within the Thai Buddhist tradition itself there are streams that since long have taken
an alternative view of mainstream doctrine. They emphasize social engagement
detached from worldly religious expressions, expecting temples to devote funds
and monks’ labor to meet people’s daily needs. In the 1960s and 1970s training
programs were started to train monks in rural development and social welfare, such
as the Buddhist universities sponsored Project for Encouraging the Participation
of Monks in Community Development. To these days there are monks working in
the areas of environmental conservation, HIV/AIDS hospice work, social welfare
services and community development on their own initiative. In this approach, the
connection between the “outer” social and economic change and “inner” personal
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

29
transformation is emphasized (Swearer 2010, pp. 145-150). Donations are therefore
used to support social rather than religious activities and “traditional merit-making
rituals are also given a practical, socially relevant significance”:

Instead of donations to the monastery that often reduplicate

articles far beyond need and use, Luang Pho Nan has
adapted these ceremonies for the benefit and well-being
of the entire village. For example, the monetary donations
given to Wat Samakkhi at the pha pa or “forest robe giv-
ing ceremony” when monks are presented with new robes
at the end of the harvest season, the funds now become
the shared property of the village to be used to support
rice cooperatives (Swearer 2010, p. 150).

Recently, the Santi Asoke movement has aimed to revive the forest monk ideal
of simple living and sufficiency in the urban setting of Bangkok and in a number
of self-sustaining communities in the country. In spite of controversies due to its
disrespect of Sanggha rules and its partisan political engagement, Santi Asoke has
grown rapidly becoming the second largest Buddhist group after (and in opposition to)
the Dhammakaya movement. Besides their monasteries, the movement also operates
social enterprises whose incomes finance the movement, including second-hand
stores with sales of about TBH 600,000-800,000 (US$20,000–25,000) a month,
farmer’s markets, and an Indian restaurant that offers free meals to those in need
(Whitaker 2019).

The same tensions in prioritizing religious or social purposes and the pressure
of commercialism in the use of funds can also be found among other religious
organizations. However, as discussed before, both Muslim and Christian beneficiary
organizations, like their givers, put somewhat greater emphasis on human solidarity
as a goal for raising and using donations. Education and health are preferred sectors,
but gradually some local faith-based organizations are also becoming active in
wider development-oriented activities from community development to protection
of migrants and refugees among others. And here is where their path cross with
a variety of secular counterparts preoccupied with the welfare of the population.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

30

Royal Foundations
and Projects Promote
Development
A distinct feature of the philanthropic and charitable sector in Thailand are the
royal foundations and their royal projects. As revealed by the Assumption University
survey presented in Table 7, after religious institutions, charitable foundations founded
by H.M. the King or members of the royal household are considered the most
trustworthy and effective beneficiaries by individual donors. They have a reputation
of delivering on programs and being concerned for the neediest in society; and have
been established for relatively long period of time compared to other non-profit
organizations. The first initiative started by the late H. M. King Bhumibol Adulyadej
who reigned for 70 years (1946 - 2016) was the introduction from Penang, Malaysia
of the Tilapia mosambica fish in 1951 followed in 1952 by the first royal project
focusing on rural development and road construction and in 1953 by the first
irrigation project with the construction of Khao Tao Reservoir in Hua Hin.11 In 1969,
the approach became more comprehensive and the Royal Project Foundation was
founded as an umbrella organization for H.M the King’s charitable initiatives and
research mainly in the disadvantaged areas in Northern Thailand (HM Bhumibol
Adulyadej 1987). At the time, Thailand was still a resource-poor country in the
midst of regional conflict and focus was on alleviating poverty and preventing
spreading of unrest especially in the remote areas of the country (Pahonyolthin
2017).

Today, there is a great variety and number of royal foundations and projects as well
as NPOs under royal patronage —most known and leading beneficiary of donations
among them the Thai Red Cross. The largest ones have been entrusted to Her
Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn as the Executive Chairperson.
Activities are spread across Thailand, but still with a heavy concentration in the North
and Northeast as the most disadvantaged regions of the country. Some foundations,
such as the well-known Chaipattana Foundation, also supports activities in
neighboring countries and beyond. According to the website of the Office of the

11 http://www.rdpb.go.th/en/Projects/background
-of-the-royal-development-projects-c50
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

31
Royal Development Projects Board (RDPB), royal initiatives are grounded in the
development vision of the late King and its scientific approach to development. Six
Royal Development Study Centres (RDSC) have been established in six provinces
(see Figure 2) to research development problems and propose effective solutions.
Applying the principles of moderation, self-reliance and sustainable development at
the core of the “Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” conceived by H.M. King Bhumibol
Adulyadej, over 4,000 small-scale “royally suggested” projects have been launched
addressing “the whole spectrum of rural problems in Thailand, from the introduction
of new cash crops to water and soil conservation, from swamp drainage to the
preservation of national forests”.12

Figure 3: Six Royal Development Study Centers (RDSC)

From North to South

• Huai Hong Khrai RDSC, Chiang Mai

• Puparn RDSC, Sakon Nakhon
• Khao Hin Sorn RDSC, Chachoengsao
• Huai Sai RDSC, Petchaburi
• Kung Krabaen Bay RDSC, Chenthaburi
• Pikun Thong RDSC, Narathiwat

Source: RDPB13

These many royal initiatives can be classified according to the key development sectors
they contribute to, namely: agriculture, environment, public health, occupational
safety, water resources, transportation and communication infrastructure, public
welfare, and a general category of ‘others’. They can further be divided according
to four different modalities:

12 https://www.thaimain.com/eng/monarchy/project.html

13 http://www.rdpb.go.th/en/Studycenter/royal-development-
study-centres-rdscs-c60
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

32
1. The Projects Initiated According to His Majesty’s Wish-
es: These are projects which His Majesty the King con-
ducts study, experimentation and implementation himself
inside and outside the Palace compound based on the rec-
ommendations of field experts, using his private funds […]

2. The Royal Projects: His Majesty is determined to pursue

development and preservation of water resources in the
watershed areas particularly in the North of Thailand. The
motive is to help prevent and reduce the damages from
floods in the lowlands during droughts. Moreover, since
most of the areas are occupied by hilltribes, His Majesty
also intends to help promote their well-being by convincing
them to stop opium cultivation, deforestation, slash-and-
burn activity, logging as well as smuggling of illegal
merchandises and weapons […] The benevolence of Their
Majesties the King and the Queen is so great that they
are called “The Royal Father” and “The Royal Mother” by
the hilltribe people. And therefore, the projects created
by the Royal Parents are known as “The Royal Projects”.

3. The Projects under His Majesty’s Patronage: These are

projects in which His Majesty gives advice and guidelines
to the private sector to implement using its own financial,
technical and human resources with continual monitoring
measures […].

4.The Royal Development Projects: These are projects

which His Majesty plans and advises the government
agencies concerned including civil agencies, the police and
the military to undertake study and implementation of
development work. The Royal Development Projects which
are spread throughout every region of the country focus
on development and are on both short-term and long-
term bases extending for a period of over five years.
Many Royal Development Projects are technical in nature
with some representing study projects and others repre-
senting research projects (shortened version from RDPB
website).14

14 http://www.rdpb.go.th/en/Projects/project-character-
istics-c53
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

33
The resources for these foundations and projects come from a variety of sources.
Besides funds from the Royal House and other royal funds and partnerships with the
Thai government, mostly, it is companies and high income families that contribute
regularly because of the reputation of the beneficiary organizations and the
recognition that comes with donating to them as well as an expression of faith
and loyalty to the monarch (Arthayukti 2006; Perkins, Mantle, & Sungthong 2010).
For wealthy individuals and companies, the tax exemption that they can get for
donating to royal foundations is also attractive. Royal foundations are among the
relatively small group of non-profit organizations designated as Public Charitable
Institutions (PCIs) by the Ministry of Finance and allowed to offer full deductibility
for donations, while most foundations and associations lack the PCI status and
consequently also the fiscal benefit (see below).

No information is available about the total amount of donations received, but it is assumed
to be high and generally consisting of larger size donations when compared with
those to religious institutions, albeit the frequency of receiving individual donations
is clearly lower. The same Table 7 shows that royal foundations and projects are at
quite a distance from religious institutions and people donate to them less frequently
than to educational institutes, health facilities and community organizations. This,
can be explained by the fact that direct fundraising with the general public is more
subdued and the government incentives provided for donating to health and education
facilities rather than development initiatives are greater (see later). Also, there are
sources of support that are not included in the study, such as partnerships with
International organizations, for instance the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) collaborating with the Mae Fah Luang Foundation—another leading royal
foundation founded in 1969 by the late Princess Mother Srinagarindra— to tackle
opium cultivation by improving the conditions of ethnic groups in the northern
province of Chiang Rai. Some of the projects further operate as social enterprises15
or have a commercial branch to earn funds for the foundation like the Doi Tung
Café brand of Mae Fah Luang Foundation offering coffee and other substitution
crops to urban consumers across the country.

Well-endowed and with a strong presence nationally, royal foundations somewhat

obfuscate the work of other NPOs and may have contributed to the limited growth of
the philanthropic sector in Thailand. The significant wealth that has been generated
during the country’s economic revival in this second millennium remains largely
untapped for philanthropic purposes, especially of an institutionalized form.

15 Social entrepreneurship refers to both non-profit and

profit organizations that apply commercial strategies
to attain social and environmental outcomes such as
microfinance, fair trade, ‘triple bottom line’ compa-
nies that besides economic gains also pursue social
and environmental benefits, and, especially in Asia,
cooperatives.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

34

Family and Corporate

Initiatives Dominate the
Philanthropic Sector
The high-profile royal foundations exist side-by side a variety of family and corporate
initiatives not always formally registered as autonomous donor organizations. The
model of endowed grant-making foundations promoted by American foundations
working in the region, and especially the Ford Foundation, through their efforts to
stimulate local philanthropy shaped in their own image, was never fully adopted by
wealthy individuals. Philanthropy itself, with its emphasis on addressing the root
causes of social problems and bringing structural change, rather than suffice with the
charity approach of ameliorating the conditions of those in need and alleviating their
suffering, is generally poorly understood among the public and rarely implemented
by local donors:

projects funded under various ‘philanthropic’ causes, more

often than not, do not invest in building sustained impact for
the beneficiaries, but rather, contribute towards immediate
or short-term results. Giving in itself is a charitable act,
and thus, the engagement of the giver ends once the giving
is done (Phaholyothin 2017 p. 190)

No wonder then that, to this day, there are few private Thai foundations with
the features of US foundations working internationally, like: an endowment whose
gains are used to support administration and programs (thus not requiring the
raising of funds); a strategic vision to identify key challenges and address them
through a systematic grant-making strategy; fully devoted to grant-making (thus not
implementing their own programs), operated by professional officers; governed by
an independent board; and that would privilege CSOs as grantees (Sciortino 2017).
This scarcity, common also to other Southeast and East Asian countries has been
justified as dictated by cultural values that expect rich individuals to be communal
and prioritize their families, clans, or patronage networks. In the case of wealthy
Sino-Thai families it has been argued that the deep-seated ethos of family loyalty,
as described above, has “shaped and fossilized the style of company management
as well as the style of charitable actions done in the name of the family or company”
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

35
(Feungfusakul 2020). Furthermore, wealth is to be used to justify as well as to
build one’s social position with immediate actions that bring rescue and relief, rather
than taking the longer-term and less visible approach of endowing an independent
organization (Baron 1997; Sciortino 2017).

Interestingly the model of endowed grant-making foundations was instead adapted

in Thailand and regionally by foundations established in the 1980s through grants
and debt-for-development swaps under bilateral programs with the US, Canada, and
other partners, such as the Development Cooperation Foundation (DCF). Later, in
2001, the Thai government adopted the same model to establish the Thai Health
Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth), a leading grant-making institution that operates
with public funds. Established as an “autonomous government agency” to provide
flexible funding to relevant non-government stakeholders and avoid bureaucratic
rigidity, in 2017 ThaiHealth managed US$ 132 million derived from a 2 percent
surcharge on excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol. With US$ 129.3 million grant
and operational expenditures in the same year, ThaiHealth can be considered by
far the largest funder in the country, especially of CSOs, even when compared to
European, Japanese and US foundations whose yearly spending in Thailand does
not surpass US$ 5 millions each. Although this hybrid foundation does not fit the
classic definition of private foundation as it uses public funds, it does best represent
the imported prototype in the operation and grant-making model, including a clear
grant-making strategy directed at addressing the root causes of health problems by
fostering the synergic impact of research, policy advocacy and social movements
(see Fig. 3). The scope and impact of ThaiHealth are noteworthy, and it has been
successful in investing resources to build a civic movement to promote change in
public health behavior. However, the semi-autonomous position and the dependency
on public funds poses challenges as it exposes it to political interference
and the will of conservative bureaucrats (Pongutta et al 2019; see also below).

Outside of this large-scale indigenous public donor, three kinds of local private donor
institutions can be identified. Contrary to ThaiHealth and its acting merely as a
grant-making institution, they all operate as both fund givers and receivers as well
as implementing agencies. The first kind are the so-called “benevolent foundations”
associated with the Thai Chinese community and linked to the Chinese temples
as previously described; the second kind consists of family foundations with funds
coming from members of a single, often multi-generational family with strong ties
to the family business, and the third kind entails corporate (non-family) foundations.
Starting with the benevolent foundations, they are among the oldest charitable
institutions in Thailand, having started at the beginning of the 19th century and
expanded into a network of mutual help and welfare associations sharing common
origins in China during the 1919-1938 period. Among them, the Siamese Overseas
Chinese Benevolence Foundation established in 1910 and registered in 1937 as the
Huachiew Poh Teck Siang Tung Foundation is today considered the largest Chinese
benevolent foundation with branches across the country, funds and assets in the
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

36
hundred million and a multitude of activities including the Huachiew Hospital, a
large hospital in Bangkok initially only devoted to Chinese medicine, and Huachiew
Chalermprakiet University in Samut Prakan province (Formoso 1996). The boards of these
foundationrs are generally composed of wealthy senior community representative who
take responsibility for the finances (through personal donations as well as fundraising),
while the management is entrusted to professional staff. Leaving aside the religious
activities centered on Chinese temples already discussed above, undertakings
consist of offering relief during disasters and alleviating poverty, providing education
and healthcare, but also supporting culture and arts. Most-known are the Foundation’s
services of retrieving corpses from accidents and catastrophes and providing funeral
services for the needy (Phaholyothin 2017).

Figure 4: Thai Health Promotion Foundation’s Grant-making Strategy

Achieve global voluntary targets and SDG health targets
for noncommunicable diseases

Improve healthy lifestyle Improve healthy

and pratices environment

Increase multisectoral actions

Thai health strategy to strengthen and Thai health strategy to promote

reorient communities to prevent broad-based miltisectoral partnerships,
noncommunicable diseases and health civil society organization and active
protection Social citizens
movement

Thai health strategy to

Thai health strategy to
support policy research,
support policy advocacy
monitoring and evaluation,
and broad-based public
health promotion policy
campaigns
Political Scientific implementations
involvement evidence

Source: Pongutta et al 2019

Foundations of the second kind are relatively more recent with most family
foundations having been established in the last three decades. The reasons for
wealthy families to set up foundations with family’s assets and human resources
are many, but according to a study on family philanthropy in Asia, including Thailand,
“ensuring the continuity of family values or creating a lasting legacy” was the most
common cause for establishing a foundation followed by developing family cohesion
and enhancing capabilities of younger generations. More pragmatic reasons were
exerting influence for political or business purposes; patronage; and increasing
standing in the community. Like the unstructured giving of prosperous individuals,
these family foundations are also meant to meet communal expectations and, if in
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

37
diaspora, maintain a connection to the country of origin, most often China (Hayling
et al. 2014; UBS-INSEAD 2012).

Family foundations do not fully act as donors. Like the Chinese benevolent
foundations, they are operationally oriented and mix grant-making activities with
direct implementation of programs. They also raise funds from other sources for
their projects, thus becoming competitors with the very organizations they could be
funding. When grants are provided, they tend to be ad hoc and given to persons
and institutions known to the family. Often personnel and administrative systems
from family business are used to simplify processes and economize resources. Some
foundations will also make use of company profits and not only personal wealth for
philanthropic engagements:

One has to be cognizant of the fact that in Asia it is hard

to establish degrees of separation between family
philanthropy and company philanthropy/CSR [corporate
social responsibility]. Often what is seen as individual or
family giving is ‘company giving’ now practiced through
the establishment of company foundations and trusts.
Funds flowing into these foundations include those of
owners, investors, employees, and other stakeholders
(UBS-INSEAD 2012, p. 23).

This intertwining of family foundations with family business is unsurprising considering

that “the family continues to be an exceptionally strong locus for business and
philanthropic activities” (UBS Philanthropy Services & INSEAD, 2012, p. 16). The
blurring of philanthropic and business objectives is also not exceptional, as it
characterizes also the third type of local philanthropic institutions in Thailand.
Similarly, to family foundations, corporate (non-family) foundations vary in their
operation from a complete fusion to separation of business and philanthropic
functions, but the great majority maintains close connections between brand, funding,
management, and focus of giving. Another common feature is an emphasis on
welfare and particularly education through scholarships and individual human
capacity development. For instance, the Siam Cement Group (SCG) Foundation,
a well-known corporate foundation of one of the kingdom’s oldest and most
established firm, which produce cement and construction materials for the country’s
infrastructure, has been providing more than 77,000 scholarships to children and
youths lacking financial support for over 36 years. Programs that involve staff have
also contributed to building of schools across the country.16

16 https://www.scgfoundation.org/en/project/showcase/
scholar
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

38
Notwithstanding some large initiatives, it needs to be stressed once more that
the institutionalization of giving remains rare as corporations, wealthy individuals
and family donors generally operate through informal or corporate channels rather
than private foundations. Partly because of the non-conducive policy environment
as described later in the paper, many have opted for CSR rather than philanthropy
in its traditional sense, as a practice and concept that gives direct benefits to
the family and business and it is better understood by the government and the
public (Chhina et al., 2014). CSR has been gaining momentum in Thailand since
the mid 2000s with the establishment of the Corporate Social Responsibility
Institute (CSRI) at the SET (Stock Exchange of Thailand), the CSR department at
the Royal Foundations, and The Network of Non-Governmental Organizations and
Business Partnerships for Sustainable Development. Initially CSR efforts consisted
of employee volunteer and community service programs, but were later expanded
externally through direct project interventions, financial donations and non-cash
contributions (Prayukvong, P. and Olsen, M. 2009). Some question, however, the
degree to which CSR concepts are integrated into core business practices and
concern is diffuse that there is a significant amount of green-washing occurring to
profile the company as environmentally sound (Kraisornsuthasinee and Swierczek
2006). Besides CSR, wealthy individuals, families and corporations show a growing
interest for social impact investment as a new subset of the venture capital market
that provides expansion capital to seek social impact and financial return at the
same time. Investments are made in a new brand of social enterprises as companies
that pursue profit, while claiming to also contribute to social causes.

Through these various institutionalized and less institutionalized forms of giving

a multitude of causes are funded, with a majority of funding dedicated to
education—especially the funding of academic buildings and fellowships—and
to a lesser extent to medical care, including hospital buildings and treatment for
underprivileged groups. Through their companies and Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) programs, donors also contribute to community development in the areas
surrounding company assets, and to ad hoc responses to disasters or community
events. Arts and culture are often considered for branding purposes and contributions
to human rights and social and gender equity are minimal, although younger
generations seem more interested in such causes than their parents.

Generally, it can be said that the majority of Thai foundations and CSR, social
enterprises and social impact investment initiatives focus on ameliorating human
suffering and immediate welfare problems with some intervention in economic
processes. They avoid, instead, the more transformational approaches addressing
the root causes of social problems and refrain from advocacy, engagement in policy
reforms, governance or human rights support. This is partly due to heightened
concern for reputational risks and potential conflict with the government and other
parties that may affect corporate activities. This risk-averse attitude also implies
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

39
that private local philanthropy, similar to individual donors, rarely funds CSOs and
particularly stays away from advocacy-oriented ones, and this at a time when they
need help most in the face of shrinking resources.

New Forms of Giving

Lead to New Ways?
The withdrawal of foreign donors from Thailand since its recovery from the 1997
financial crisis and its moving from a lower-middle income to an upper-middle
income country in 2011 has led to a reduction in international funding and in support
to CSOs as the key partner in development efforts. As previously mentioned, CSOs
also struggle to raise funds from the public due to the preference of donating to
relatives, religious causes or royal projects, as well as a poor opinion of the sector
often perceived in opposition to the State (see also Table 7). While ThaiHealth
has filled this void in certain fields, current proposals to amend its founding Act
imply a more limited role in providing broad-based support for the civic movement
(Pongutta et al 2019). The latest “NGO Sustainability Index” for Thailand (USAID 2019)
concluded that CSOs’ sustainability deteriorated in 2018, with many experiencing
increased difficulty in accessing domestic sources of funding from which they
have become increasingly dependent, which in turn affected their programs and
compromised their social impact.

Some change could come with the emergence of greater social consciousness
among the youth and the spreading of technological innovation. Most CSOs see
value in broadening their donor base with crowd-funding and other electronic
platforms for donations and try to form circles of “friends” who join in providing
support. These and other innovations could popularize social causes and the work
of CSOs to the general public in a positive manner ensuring vetting of worthy
initiatives and provide an alternative to religious and charitable giving by directing
donations toward social development causes. Indeed, online giving has been
adopted by the CSO community in Thailand for fund raising purposes. International
NGOs and large local NGOs have links to payment providers on their websites or
refer the public to international social giving portals such as Global Giving or to
those specific to the region like Give2Asia. The Thai version TaejaiDotcom, roughly
translated as “giving from the heart” was established in 2012 by a consortium of
non-profit organizations including Change Fusion, the Khon Thai Foundation, Ashoka
Thailand, the Thai Young Philanthropists Network (TYPN), Open Dreams, and Krung
Thep Thurakit newspaper, to connect individual donors directly to the work of local
NGOs, communities, and charities. To this day TaejaiDotcom has received a total of
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

40
60 million baht from at least 30,000 people for 281 projects with donations growing
from about 400,000 baht in 2012 to 23 million baht in 2018 (Chirapaisarnkul 2019).

While this growth is encouraging, the general response to online fundraising is

generally quite low when compared to informal cash giving. It is still uncommon for
low-middle class Thais to make payments with credit cards and donating online,
although this could change with the rapid adoption of payments with bank mobile
apps. Many local banks have developed apps that also enable donations to
recognized charitable entities and release payment slips to claim tax deductions
and it will be interesting to see the level of adoption in the years to come. Another
question, is in how far technological innovations will change the nature of donations.
For now, an examination of the programs showcased on giving platforms soon
reveal that they are often emotional and charitable in nature and rarely showcase
structural and policy-oriented development activities to fund. TYPN is aware of such
bias and strive to promoting more strategic giving at least among an upcoming
generation of philanthropists.

A mixed picture also appears from the drastic increase in charitable giving driven
by celebrities and ‘influencers”. Most renown among them, rock star Artiwara “Toon
Bodyslam” Kongmalai, who gained fame with a 55-day marathon that raised 1.37
billion baht for public hospitals in 2017 and since then has been raising funds with
the Kao Kon La Kao-Kao (Take One Step Each) Foundation charity runs for
cash-strapped public hospitals across the country. While there is general appreciation
for this running-for-charity sensation and companies compete to associate their
brand to the charity runs, there are some doubts about the sustainability and
strategic value of this approach in resolving the country’s endemic under-funding of
hospitals. Such fund-raising efforts are also poorly scrutinized and, like in the case
of donations for religious purposes, there is little public interest in knowing how the
funds are used once the collection is over, at risk of abuse. A recent example are
the irregularities that occurred in the distribution of the more than 400 million baht
raised by actor and volunteer rescue worker Bin Bunluerit to help flood victims in
North Thailand in 2019 (Bangkok Post 2019a).

Capitalizing on these new forms of giving thus seems to require —not unlikely
efforts to enhance the effectiveness of traditional forms— more adequate endeavors
to develop monitoring systems for transparency and accountability. This also implies
a cultural shift away from viewing giving as an end to itself independently of its
actual and a policy and fiscal environment more supportive of strategic giving and
sustained impacts (Phaholyothin 2017).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

41

Ecosystem Favors
Charitable Giving
Policy in Thailand has paid scant attention to the operation and growth of the
non-profit sector leaving many aspects unresolved or poorly regulated, while the
sector itself shows little interest for self-regulation and information disclosure
(WINGS 2002). The limited legislative and regulatory mechanisms that exist de
facto discourage institutionalized philanthropic giving in favor of more traditional
forms of a religious and charitable rather than developmental nature.

Summarizing, it can be said that there are limited incentives for NPOs to register
and scant tax privileges for donors to donate to them. From the institutional side,
benefits of registering are not sufficiently attractive to both donors who want
to start a foundation and CSOs that aim to receive donations. The possibility of
building an endowment and operate as a grant-making foundation in a sustainable
manner is impeded by legal restrictions as foundations can only keep funds in saving
accounts and are forbidden from investing their capital. The majority is also unable
to attain complete exemption from income and corporate tax and cannot offer full
deductibility as a PCI due to the usually burdensome and lengthy process to be
officially started after 3 years from registration. Estimations show that only 600
out of more than 30,000 registered NPOs or about two per cent —a large part of
them, as previously mentioned Royal Foundations— had attained this PCI status
in Thailand in 2014 (Anand and Hayling 2014) and the situation is probably not
much different today. For most associations and foundations, they have to suffice
with corporate income tax exemption only on membership fees, registration fees,
donations or gifts, while they are charged between 2-10 percent on the incomes
depending on the source (see Table 9). Moreover, registering and maintaining
registration as an NPO requires substantial capital and time, so smaller CSOs
choose to operate informally also because there is little enforcement of laws to
compel concerned parties to become official.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

42
Table 8: Summary of incorporation, reporting, and tax regulations
FOREIGN NPOS
FOREIGN NPOS
(BASED IN
ORGANIZATION (BASED AND
FOUNDATION ASSOCIATION THAILAND AND
TYPE OPERATING IN
OPERATING
THAILAND)
REGIONALLY)
Reporting/ National Culture National Culture Ministry of Ministry of
Regulatory body Commission Commission Labour and Foreign Affairs
(NCC); Ministry (NCC); Ministry Social Welfare –
of the Interior; of the Interior; Department of
Social Welfare Social Welfare Employment
Promotion Board Promotion Board
(for organizations (for organizations
with Public with Public
Benefit status) Benefit status)
Formal in Yes, seek Yes, seek Yes, must report Apply to the
corporation permission from permission from to Department ministry to set
NCC before NCC before of Employment up an office in
registering with registering with every 6 months. Thailand and seek
the ministry. the ministry. approval from
the Cabinet;
successful
applicants are
required to sign
an MOU.
Formal Yes, must No, unless Yes, failure to As per
accounting summit audited designated comply may requirements
standards financial as a Public result in laid out in MOU
statement and Charitable withdrawal of with Ministry of
an annual Institution. permission to Foreign Affairs.
report can result operate.
in fine of up
to USD670
or a year of
imprisonment.
Public reporting None None None None
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

43
Table 8: (Continue)
FOREIGN NPOS
FOREIGN NPOS
(BASED IN
ORGANIZATION (BASED AND
FOUNDATION ASSOCIATION THAILAND AND
TYPE OPERATING IN
OPERATING
THAILAND)
REGIONALLY)
Income tax 2% corporate 2% corporate 2% corporate Exempted from
requirement tax; 10% income tax; 10% income tax; 10% income local tax
tax on the gross tax on the gross tax on the gross requirements
income received; income received; income received;
Corporate income Corporate income Corporate income
tax exemption on tax exemption on tax exemption on
membership fees, membership fees, membership fees,
registration fees registration fees registration fees
and donations or and donations or and donations or
gifts; Complete gifts; Complete gifts; Complete
exemption from exemption from exemption from
income and income and income and
corporate tax is corporate tax is corporate tax is
only available to only available to only available to
Public Charitable PCIs PCIs
Institution (PCIs)
Entitled to Donations to PCI Donations to PCI Donations to PCI None
tax-free status deductible status deductible status deductible
donations up to 10% of net up to 10% of net up to 10% of net
income income income
Governed by Civil and Civil and The Entry of Must adhere to
Commercial Code; Commercial Code; Foreign Private regulations laid
National Culture National Culture Organizations out in MOU with
Act Act to Operate in Ministry of
Thailand B.E 2541 Foreign Affairs
(1998)
Source: Anand, P. U. and Hayling, C. 2014.

From the point of view of (wealthier) givers who aim for tax deductions, if not
to the limited number of PCIs and particularly royal foundations, they would opt
for religious institutions, public hospitals and educational institutions, selected
government funds and sport activities. Only in these cases, they can attain 100
per cent deduction up to ten percent of net earnings or profits (i.e., income after
taxes and other deductibles) for individuals and two percent for corporates (PWC
2017). Tax deductions of up to 200 percent are also given for donations to specific
government projects and funds in education, child care, juvenile justice and sports.
In practice, it is easier is to donate to registered religious institutions, and secondarily
to public education and health institutions, interestingly a reflection of general
preferences among givers in Thailand. One cannot but wonder here, if reforming
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

44
fiscal regulations to be more supportive of giving to social development causes
would result in changes in current patterns of giving. Or, as many argue, would still
not make much difference since fiscal incentives are too small anyway, especially
in countries where the effective tax rate is relatively low and so is tax compliance
(Hayling, Sciortino and Upadhyay 2014).

No matter what legal and fiscal reforms are made, if individual giving is to transform
in institutional giving and move from charitable to philanthropic, the sector will need
to establish a support infrastructure. This, starting from systematically collecting
data that accurately capture the state of giving to enable greater efficiencies in
funds allocation and use and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Awareness raising and
public education would also be needed to advance more strategic and accountable
giving. In a previous paper on four countries in Southeast Asia, including Thailand,
my co-authors and I concluded that all the counties “would benefit from concerted
donor education to advance strategic philanthropy and move beyond chequebook
charity” (Hayling, Sciortino and Upadhyay 2014). Here the experience of ThaiHealth
could serve as a useful model of institutionalized giving to be possibly duplicated
by private donors. Furthermore, as Anand and Hayling 2014, p. 78) recommend
“services and mechanisms to support donors and facilitate giving—such as advisory
services, knowledge sharing, and networking platforms [are essential to channel]
resources where they are needed most”.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

45

Conclusion
Thailand’s rich giving culture has been explored highlighting both the diversity of
giving values and practices among different groups in society and the variety of
institutional arrangements in donating and raising funds. It has been discussed how
each tradition is supported by its specific religious, spiritual, and socio-cultural beliefs
and how the interplay of religious and ethnic dynamics with other social structures
such as gender and class results in differentiated giving among diverse groups.

This multiplicity of religious and cultural giving practices is grounded in shared

notions of reciprocity and merit making and a general inclination for individual rather
than institutionalized giving. There is also an overriding tendency to donate to
religious entities or for religious purposes and to a lesser extent to (mainly public)
educational and health causes. There are tensions between spiritual, humanitarian
and social causes within and between giving traditions, but the emphasis in
both older and newer practices is amelioration of immediate needs, with possible
nuances to the degree giving serves for self-accomplishment or solidarity to others.
Social development concerns are the domain of royal foundations and a minority of
religious, family and corporate initiatives, but few go as far as adopting a
transformative philanthropic approach that addresses the causes of social problems
rather than their symptoms. In the words of Somkiat Tangkitvanich, president of the
Thailand Development Research Institute: “The charitable giving culture in Thailand
is highly concentrated in religion and education while charity is oriented toward
‘doing good’ rather than creating changes” (Bangkok Post 2017).

In this context, the issue has been raised about how to ensure that the significant
financial resources donated by individual and institutional donors are responsibly
used and can have a more lasting impact. If giving is to contribute to social
development a shift may be needed from charitable giving to strategic philanthropy
within each giving tradition and form of giving. In doing so the praised generosity
of Thai people will become a force of transformation for Thai society.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

46

References
Anand, P. U. and Hayling, C. 2014. Levers for Change — Philanthropy in Select
South East Asian Countries. Social Insight Research Series. Lien Centre
for Social Innovation: Research. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/
lien_reports/6
Apinunmahakul 2014. “Religious and Non-Religious Giving in Thailand: An Economic
Perspective”. Paper for the Graduate School of Development Economics,
NIDA
Arthayukti, W. 2006. “Sustaining community philanthropy — A response from Thailand”.
Alliance, Vol. 11, Number 1 at https://www.alliancemagazine.org/feature/
sustaining-community-philanthropy-a-response-from-thailand/
Bangkok Post. 2017. “Better to Give…” Bangkok Post, 3 July 2017. Accessed at
https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/1280011/better-to-give-
Bangkok Post. 2019. “Donations Hit B15m in First Hour of Toon’s Latest Charity
Run”. Bangkok Post, 15 June 2019 Accessed at https://www.bangkokpost.
com/thailand/general/1695708/toon-charity-run-raises-b15m-in-first-hour
Bangkok Post 2019a. “Nearly 600m Raised for Flood Victims”. Bangkok Post, 18
September 2019. Accessed at https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/
general/1752819/nearly-b600m-raised-for-flood-victims
Benedict, R. 1952 “Thai Culture and Behavior” Data Paper No. 4. Cornell University
Southeast Asia Program, 35.
Brown, R. A. 2014. Islam in Modern Thailand: Faith, Philanthropy and Politics. New
York: Routledge
HM Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand. 1987. A Memoir of His Majesty King
Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. Bangkok: Office of His Majesty’s Principal
Private Secretary,
Charities Aids Foundation (CAF) 2018. World Giving Index. Accessed at https://
www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/caf_wgi2018_
report_webnopw_2379a_261018.pdf
Charities Aids Foundation (CAF) 2019. World Giving Index; 10th Edition. Accessed
at https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/
caf_wgi_10th_edition_report_2712a_web_101019.pdf
Chhina, S., Petersik, W., Loh, J., & Evans, D. (2014). From charity to change: Social
Investment in Selected Southeast Asian countries. Lien Centre for Social
Innovation. Retrieved from http://ink.library.smu.edu. sg/lien_reports/11
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

47
Chirapaisarnkul, A. 2019. “Home-Grown Philanthropy in Southeast Asia: A Bonus
for Civil Society?” Perspective from Thai Young Philanthropist Network.
PowerPoint presentation at SEA Junction on 23 June 2019.
Cohen, E. 1995. Christianization and Indigenization: Contrasting processes of reli-
gious adaptation in Thailand. In Kaplan, S. (ed.). Indigenous Responses to
Western Christianity. New York & London: New York Press: 29-55
Cone, M. and Gombrich, R. F. 2011. The Perfect Generosity of Prince Vessantara:
A Buddhist Epic. Bristol: The Pali Text Society
Dorloh, S. 2015. Reviewing the Law for Muslim Affairs in Enhancing the Waqf In-
stitution in Thailand: A Way Forward. The Journal of Muamalat and Islamic
Finance Research, 12(2): 33-40. Retrieved from http://jmifr.usim.edu.my/
index.php/jmifr/article/view/114
Fernquest, J. 2017 “Sangha Act: Changes in Laws on Monks & Money”. Bangkok
Post 24 February 2017. Accessed at https://www.bangkokpost.com/learn-
ing/advanced/1204216/sangha-act-changes-in-laws-on-monks-money
Fernquest, J. 2017. “Sangha Reform: Monks Getting Rich Off of Temple Donations”.
Bangkok Post, 24 May 2017. Accessed at https://www.bangkokpost.com/
learning/advanced/1218734/sangha-reform-monks-getting-rich-off-of-tem-
ple-donations
Feungfusakul, A. 2020. “Comments on ‘Diversity and Change in Charitable Giving
in Thailand’”. Unpublished
Gray, C. E., 1991. “Hegemonic Images: Language and Silence in the Royal Thai
Polity”. Man, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), pp. 43-65 Published
by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2803474.
Hasan, S. 2006. “Muslim Philanthropy and Social Security: Prospects, Practices,
and Pitfalls”. Paper presented at the 6th ISTR Biennial Conference held in
Bangkok, 9-12 July 2006.
Holmes, Henry, and Suchada Tangtongtavy. Working with the Thais: A guide to
Managing in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus, 1995.
Hughes, P. 1985. Christianity and Buddhism in Thailand” Journal of the Siam Soci-
ety, 73(Jan-July 1985): 23-41.
Keyes, C. F. 1983 “Economic Action and Buddhist Morality in a Thai Village” Journal
of Asian Studies 42, no. 4: 857
Keyes, C. F. 1983. “Merit-transference in the Kammic Theory of Popular Theravada
Buddhism. In C. F. Keyes & E. V. Daniel (Eds.), Karma: An Anthropological
Inquiry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 261–286.
Kemasingki, P. and Songmuang, W. 2018. “Thai Buddhism’s Struggle for Relevance”.
CityLife Chiang Mai. Accessed at https://www.chiangmaicitylife.com/
citylife-articles/thai-buddhisms-struggle-relevance/
Kataoka, T. 2012. “Religion as Non-Religion: The Places of Chinese Temples in
Phuket, Southern Thailand”. Southeast Asia Studies, Vol. 1(3): 461-485
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

48
Kirsch, A. T. 1975 “Economy, Polity and Religion in Thailand” in G. W. Skinner and
A. T. Kirsch (Eds.). Change and Persistence in Thai Society. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press
Klausner, W. J. 1971 “popular Buddhism in Northeast Thailand” In Northrop,
F.S.C. and Livingston, Helen H. (eds.), Cross Cultural Understanding, Epis-
temology in Anthropology (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), pp. 89–90
Komin, S. “Psychology of the Thai People-Values and Behavioral Patterns”. Bangkok:
Research Center, National Institute of Development Administration, 1990.
Lehr, P. 2019. Militant Buddhism; The Rise of Religious Violence in Sri Lanka, Myan-
mar and Thailand. Palgrave Macmillan
Kraisornsuthasinee, S. and Swierczek, F. (2006) “Interpretations of CSR in Thai
Companies.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22: 53-65.
Lapanun, P. 2019. Love, Money, and Obligation. Singapore: NUS Press
McCleary, R. M. 2007. “Salvation, Damnation, and Economic Incentives”. Journal of
Contemporary Religion, 22(1): 49-74.
Mukem, E. 2018. Keeping the faith: No stopping Nana clan. Bangkok Post 17 Feb-
ruary 2018. Accessed at https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/special-re-
ports/1413643/keeping-the-faith-no-stopping-nana-clan
Prayukvong, P. and Olsen, M. 2009. “Research Paper on Promoting Corporate So-
cial Responsibility in Thailand and the Role of Volunteerism”. Report by The
Network of NGO and Business Partnerships for Sustainable Development
(The NETWORK Thailand)
Perkins, H., Mantle, R. & Sungthong, R. 2010. “Giving in Thailand. Fundraising
Opportunities in 2010”. Unpublished Report Fundraisers in Thailand (FIT)
Phaholyothin, N. 2017. “Moving Beyond Charity to Philanthropy? The Case of Char-
itable Giving in Thailand”, Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies,
10(2): 185-203. doi: 10.14764/10.ASEAS-2017.2-4.
Pfanner D. E. and Ingersoll, J. 1962. ”Theravada Buddhism and Village Economic
Behavior: A Burmese and Thai Comparison”. The Journal of Asian Studies.
Vol. 21, No. 3 (May, 1962): 341-361
Philanthor. 2018. “The Difference Between Charity and Philanthropy” Philanthor
29 June 2018. Accessed at https://medium.com/@Philanthor/the-differ-
ence-between-charity-and-philanthropy-fe29e327acac
Pholphirul, P. 2014. “Happiness from Giving: A Quantitative Investigation from Thai
Buddhists”. Paper for the International College of NIDA and Graduate School
of Development Economics, NIDA
Pitsuwan, S. 1988. “The Islamic Banking Option in Thailand,” in Islamic Banking in
Southeast Asia. Mohamed Ariff (Ed.). Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies
Pongutta, S., Suphanchaimat, R. Patcharanarumol, W. & Tangcharoensathien, V.
2019. “Lessons from the Thai Health Promotion Foundation”. Bulletin of the
World Health Organization 97: 213-220.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

49
Rimpeng, L. 2018 ภู มิทศ ั น์ของงานศึกษาเกี่ ยวกับซะกาตและประเด็ นการวิ จย
ั ซะกาตเพื่ อ
พัฒนาความยุ ติธรรมทางสังคม (“A Landscape of Studies on Zakat and Re-
search Agendas to Study Zakat for Development of Social Justice”) Journal
of the Religion and Philosophy Society of Thailand Vol 13, no.1: 27-40
Rojanaphruk, P. 2018. The Corruption and Excesses of Thai Buddhism. Khaosod
English 2 June 2018. Accessed at http://www.khaosodenglish.com/opin-
ion/2019/08/10/opinion-the-double-denial-of-sex-work-in-thailand/
Saiyasak, C., 2006. “The Meaning and significance of Merit Making for Northeast
Thai Buddhist”. Paper presented at the PhD Colloquium on 4-8 September
2006 at the Evangelical Theological Faculty, Heverlee-Leuven, Belgium
Sciortino, R. 2017. ‘Philanthropy in Southeast Asia: Between Charitable Values, Cor-
porate Interests, and Development Aspirations’. Austrian Journal of South-
East Asian Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2: 139-163
Sindima, H. J. Major Issues in Islam: The Challenges Within and Without. Lanham:
Hamilton Books
Sitisan E. 2010. “Potentials for the Establishment of Zakat Fund in Bangkok, Thai-
land.” Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Social Science Pusat Kajian Pengurusan Pembangunan Islam
(ISDEV), Pusat Pengajian Sains Kemasyarakatan, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Swearer, D. K. 2010. The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia. Second Edition. Pub-
lished by State University of New York Press, Albany
Tambiah, S. J. (1970). Buddhism and the Spirit Cults in North-east Thailand. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tayler, 1997. “Patron-Client Relationships and the Challenge for the Thai Church”.
A thesis submitted as part of the requirements for the Master in Christian
Studies Degree Discipleship Training Centre, Singapore http://www.thaicrc.
com/collect/MIS/index/assoc/D6868.dir/6868.pdf
Taylor, J. 2017. The Perplexing Case of Wat Dhammakaya. New Mandala 6 March
2017. Accessed at https://www.newmandala.org/perplexing-case-wat-dham-
makaya/
Taylor, J. 2018 “What’s Behind the ‘Purging’ of the Thai Sangha?”. New Mandala
[8 June 2018. Accessed at https://www.newmandala.org/whats-behind-
purging-thai-sangha/
Terwiel, B. J. 1975. Monks and Magic: An Analysis of Religious Ceremonies in Central
Thailand. Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series no. 24.
Lund: Studentlitteratur, London: Curzon Press
Thailand Development and Research Institute (TDRI). 2017. “Financial Management
in Thailand’s Temples?” [Original in Thai]. TDRI 20 February 2017. Accessed
at https://tdri.or.th/2017/02/thinkx2-184/
UBS Philanthropy Services, & INSEAD. (2011). UBS-INSEAD Study on Family
Philanthropy in Asia. Singapore: UBS Philanthropy Services.
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

50
United States Department of States (USDOS). 2010. International Religious Free-
dom Report for 2010. Washington DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor, United States Department of State. Accessed at https://www.
refworld.org/docid/4cf2d0603b.html
United States Department of States (USDOS). 2018. International Religious Free-
dom Report for 2018. Washington DC: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor, United States Department of State.
Visuddhangkoon, D. 2015. An Overview of Prapheni Heet Sibsong: The Tradition of
Merit-making with Ethical Commitment to the ‘Other’, Paper for the 12th
International Buddhist Conference on the United Nations Day of Vesak, 28-
30 May 2015 Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University (MCU), Wang Noi,
Ayutthaya and United Nations Convention Center Bangkok, The Kingdom
of Thailand.
Whitaker, J. 2019. Thailand’s Santi Asoke Flourishes by Promoting Simplicity. Bud-
dhistdoor Global 10 December 2019. Accessed at https://www.buddhist-
door.net/news/thailands-santi-asoke-flourishes-by-promoting-simplicity
Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaking Support (WINGS) 2002. Investing in Our-
selves: Giving and Fund Raising in Thailand. Manila: Asia Development Bank
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

51

About the Author

Dr. Rosalia (Lia) Sciortino Sumaryono, a cultural anthropologist and development
sociologist by training, earned her master and doctorate at the Vrije Universities,
Amsterdam with honors. Currently, she is Associate Professor at the Institute for
Population and Social Research (IPSR), Mahidol University and Visiting Professor
at the Master and PhD n International Development Studies (MAIDS/GRID),
Chulalongkorn University in Thailand. She also founded and directs the Foundation
for Southeast Asian Studies and its core activity SEA Junction, a public venue for
interaction and cross-learning on Southeast Asia (www.seajunction.org).

Previously, Dr. Sciortino was IDRC Regional Director for Southeast and East Asia in
Singapore (2010-2014), Senior Adviser for the Health Program to the Australian
Agency for International Development in Indonesia (2009-2010), and Founder
Regional Director for Asia of the Rockefeller Foundation (2000-2007) establishing
during her tenure the Foundation’s Southeast Asia Office in Bangkok. Prior to that,
she was program officer Gender, Health and Human Development at the Indonesia
and Philippines offices of the Ford Foundation from 1993 to 2000.

Dr. Sciortino acts as a consultant for international and regional organizations,

most recently (2012-2020) as Senior Social Development and Health Advisor to
Empowering Indonesian Women for Poverty Reduction Program (MAMPU), a joint
initiative of the Indonesian Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas)
and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). She is as
an adviser for academic and international development institutions, including as
member of the UNFPA Global Advisory Council and is a member of scientific and
institutional boards. In November 2017, she received a medal by the Vietnamese
Association of Social Sciences for her contribution to social sciences in Vietnam.

She fluently speaks Italian, English, Indonesian and Dutch and has published widely
on development issues in Southeast Asia, in particular philanthropy, international
development, regional integration in the Greater Mekong Sub-region and ASEAN,
poverty and vulnerability, social protection, migration, gender, social health, sexual
and reproductive health (see further www.rosaliasciortino.com).
Diversity and Change
in Charitable Giving in Thailand

53

National Research Council of Thailand

Khonthai 4.0 Program

www.khonthai4-0.net
Facebook: คนไทย 4.0

Outcome Delivery Unit (ODU), Khonthai 4.0 Program

Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University
239 Huay Kaew Rd., T.Suthep, A.Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200
E-mail: project.khonthai4.0@gmail.com