It is indubitable that money is very important for helping others. However, I disagree with the given statement that it is the most essential thing in terms of a chance to help the needy. I believe that there are numerous ways of helping the underprivileged, and monetary aid is certainly not the best forms of aid.
My first argument to support my viewpoint is that giving money to the poor would be a very shortsighted approach. It would satiate their needs for some time, but ultimately they have to be made capable of standing on their own. Providing education and job training is a better way of helping them. For example, my friend’s mother, teaches children of the slum area every evening. She is herself not very rich, but she is helping in better ways than money can do.
Secondly, it is not always the financial help, which is needed by people. A timely helping hand when a person is suffering is better than helping with money. For instance, in natural calamities, such as earthquakes and floods, the immediate need of people is food and medical care. Many college students volunteered to carry food and medicines to the needy, when there was a flood in some areas of Punjab, a few years ago. Fresh medical graduates also went and stayed there and helped people with immediate medical care. In times of crises, such help outstrips any help that money can provide.
Opponents would argue that only the rich are in a position to help the poor, as people need money for even the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, and shelter. Even providing education and job training to the destitute, needs money. They have a point, but I still believe that the help in terms of personal effort provided by those who are, themselves, not so affluent is equally good.
To sum up, if one is rich, he is in a better situation to help others who need money and all the things which money can provide. However, I reiterate my view by saying that to help others, one need not be rich as help can be provided in many better ways than with money.