Our society is a caring one. Our people are generous enough to help others, and what is even more encouraging, according to a recent survey, their generosity is increasingly no longer driven by religious obligation.

The survey shows we care about people around us, especially our relatives in need. The financially strongest in our families normally serves as the safety net for their extended family, especially during difficult times.

This has been our strength as a nation. While a state-sponsored safety net does not exist, family supported safety networks help to prevent chaos and anarchy in this country during times of crisis when unemployment is high.

We also care about people outside our family circles. We, for example, care about victims of disasters, and we are mostly willing to offer a little donation to help them. We are more than willing to give money to people on the street, like beggars and street musicians.

Most of all, we are more than willing to give our money to mosques, churches, temples and committees of religious celebrations.

Although, according to the survey, more and more people are giving donations outside of religious obligation, we believe religiously motivated alms represent the biggest chunk of philanthropic activities in this country.

There is nothing wrong with giving donations based on religious beliefs. It is perfectly fine, and even encouraged.

However, the problem is that those benefiting most from our religious-driven donations are those in "the right", who are often militants and hard-liners, and not those in the middle, those moderate religious groups who promote universal values like tolerance, peace, pluralism and humanity.

Many Muslims donate mostly to nearby mosques or any mosque where we attend Friday prayers. In these places, donation boxes are ready to welcome our alms.

Moreover, "right" religious organizations make it easier for us to donate, by, for example, setting up roadblocks to direct motorists to donate or sending out volunteers to collect alms door-to-door. And we quickly give our alms to these people.

But we never care what the mosque management or boarding schools, or any organizations collecting alms from us, will use the money for. If the money eventually ends up with terrorist groups like Jamaah Islamiyah (JI), for instance, we would never know, and in fact, never care.

And still, we give our 2.5-percent-of-net-income alms to them, and not to those in the middle – organizations like Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah or even progressive groups like Jaringan Islam Liberal, or the Liberal Islam Network, which promotes liberal thinking among young Muslims.

These organizations live on profits from their own businesses, such as schools and hospitals. Only occasionally do they get donations, but the donations come not from our pockets but from foreign donors.

This practice of almsgiving to these "right" groups is not, we believe, the monopoly of Muslims. Christians, for example, more or less do the same.

They extend their 10-percent-of-income alms to churches, and not to organizations promoting inter-faith dialogue, for example. No wonder churches are among the wealthiest non-profit organizations.

Amid this bleak picture, the result of the survey by the Public Interest Research and Advocacy Center is encouraging in that more and more people are donating for reasons other than religious obligation. Although their number is still small, at least it is growing.

To help facilitate this growing philanthropic activity outside of religious lines, we suggest the government provide neutral, non-discriminatory incentives such as tax benefits that do not discriminate against religious beliefs.

We regret that the government's tax incentive for almsgiving only favors Muslims – who enjoy a 2.5 percent tax deduction for giving alms annually. Why not expand this policy to all philanthropists? The government currently gives no incentives whatsoever to philanthropic activities.

Unless the government offers non-discriminatory incentives, and we, the concerned people, do not do our part, this country's philanthropy will continue to be motivated by religious obligation and will benefit those groups in "the right", while those in the middle and those promoting universal values suffer from a lack of financial support.