Savior or showman, saint or sinner?

A Chinese businessman's radical approach to charity has raised some eyebrows. Although his method is deeply rooted in tradition, it has now evolved, leaving him looking more like a showman than a philanthropist.

Chen Guangbiao is at it again.

The some-say eccentric renewable energy and recycling billionaire, and now self-styled, high-profile philanthropist, is certainly a master showman.

Well, perhaps master is not exactly the right word.

If it is his goal to make most of his compatriots think he is a joker, as many netizens are calling him, then he is being successful.

In his latest move, Chen invited more than 200 homeless people to a free lunch in Central Park, New York, after which he planned to give each $300 in cash, and then he hoped to perform We Are the World - the charity single penned by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie for USA for Africa.

Several times that number are reported to have signed up, some of whom have begged him to take them to China instead.

This is not the first time Chen has made headlines by doing something unusual.

He previously said he was going to buy The New York Times, but it was later revealed the owners of the American newspaper refused to meet him.

But he did buy several advertisements in the paper to outline his beliefs and stance on certain issues.

Chen, listed as one of China's 400 richest people, made headlines earlier this year thanks to a business card in which he described himself as the "Most Influential Person Of China", moral leader and beloved role model.

If it's pure publicity Chen wants, you can say he is the shrewdest of investors.

The return in name recognition from the amount he spends in the US on advertising is astronomical.

But he is yet to receive universal plaudits.

I'm not sure how the average American views him (or even if they have heard of him), but here in China just 10 percent of one online poll said his unusual way of charity has raised the image of his home country internationally.

Another ten percent said what he does is much better than what many newly wealthy Chinese do with their money, namely keeping it to themselves.

But the majority said they simply couldn't understand his way of spending money to purportedly help others.

Yes, there are poor people in the US who need help, but he has no business interests there, so shouldn't he first offer his hand to those closer to him?

China is still some way behind the US economically, and has far more people in poverty either in relative or absolute terms.

So shouldn't Chen's charity begin at home, as the proverb goes?

Of course, nobody is saying Chen does not have the right to spend his money any way he sees fit.

Apart from seeking the spotlight, his form of charity carries the psychological satisfaction that many Chinese are now richer and can view the US for what it truly is, a paper tiger to borrow Mao Zedong's term.

There is a not-so-subtle undertone of schadenfreude, too, which taps into the mentality of some of his compatriots, but about which most of his American recipients of his largess probably couldn't care less.

Charity, like business dealings, should operate under business principles: just as you want to reap the largest profit from an investment, you should want to help those most in need of help when you give away your money.

It could be argued that Chen does not set out to help those Americans who need help the most, but rather those who are most visible, and by extension his act of helping will be most visible.

In marketing terms his form of charity does make sense, however, Chen - who made his first fortune from medical equipment and is now in the renewables and recycling business - never appears to want coattail benefits for his highly profitable businesses from his charity work.

Most Chinese are unaware what line of business he is in. All they know is he is deeply into flaunting his wealth, at a time when most business leaders would rather shy away from such exposure for fear of inviting unwanted attention.

Chen may be a maverick in his philanthropy, but he is by no means unprecedented.

In days gone by, the wealthy would offer free porridge by the roadside - a small but random act of kindness towards strangers, mostly very poor travelers and rickshaw drivers.

More recently, businesses have chosen to show off enlarged cheques at television fundraisers for such tragedies as the Sichuan earthquake - very obvious displays of charity which make me squirm, but which don't seem to bother many others.

There is a positive side to charity showmanship in that it encourages others to do the same. But on the flipside, is does show many people that a divide still exists between the wealthy and the disadvantaged.

However, with the growth of affluence, charity needs to become less show and more social responsibility.

People no longer feel they have to yell from the rooftops to let others know how well they are doing.

Chen is being embraced by fewer and fewer people, because his penchant for simply doling out money conforms to an old ideal, which is quickly becoming outdated, vulgar or even downright offensive.

Whatever his motivation, Chen has the right to do what he likes with his money.

Calls to investigate him for alleged illegal earnings, as some have made, are malicious. Simply because he throws money around in bad taste, does not mean he has made his money illegally.

While it is indeed difficult to make the proverbial first pot of gold fair and square, one should not automatically conclude that every entrepreneur is guilty of the so-called original sin.

If you don't agree with the way Chen conducts his charity, the best way is to ignore him, not to wish him ill.

But he may need to re-examine his priorities and consider whether posing with a huge pile of bills is everyone's idea of correctness.

He is not going to become a Bill Gates overnight by staging stunts like this, but I strongly suspect he would have made an impressive showman had he been given the opportunity early in life.

Some of the characteristics such as his chutzpah and ingenuity would have elevated him above most crowd-pleasing performance artists.

The real tragedy, if it can be called that, is the misaligned perception between how Chen believes he is seen, and how he is actually seen.

He will firmly remain on the charity peripheries by grabbing headlines and taking center stage in this way - time has moved on, and with it our ways of giving.

It is no longer wise to let the world know you have money and have given it away, even in the worthiest of causes.

As a society we have matured from making a show out of charity to treating it as a sign of human decency.

But still, any society of diversity needs to tolerate behavior that does not conform with acceptable guidelines.

Conspicuous giving may not be the norm for many, but those such as Chen who do practice it should not be vilified for it either.

The writer is editor-at-large of China Daily. Contact him at raymondzhou@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily Africa Weekly 06/27/2014 page30)