The purpose of NGO's and do-gooders?

[Srey-Lenin]

I've seen a lot of Western NGO's and general do-gooders since I've been here and I'd like to know what their purpose is?

Why would you continue to hand money over to the supposedly poor when you can see convoys of top of the range cars and stylish new buildings going up by the dozen nearly every day?

I even saw a Rolls Royce and Ferrari happily parked in my local bank recently.

so, are these people contributing to the poor of their own country do you think, and if not then why should the working man back in the West fund this corrupt narcissistic sham?

[ken svay]

Foreign aid is poor people in the west giving money to rich people in the east.

[Srey-Lenin]

yes, I agree there.

so why does this nonsense continue?

and do the rich locals help the poor here much?

[Srey-Lenin]

and am I allowed to discuss this type of issue here or

are there any laws in place that I could fall foul of?

[Florida]

SL, If you are actually a girl, and you can swear, I need to know.
I need to know what kind of swearing you might be capable of. Is it funny when you swear?
Can you swear now ? Just as an example ?

[slavedog]

I'm sure you are allowed to discuss it, but it's a boring topic. And I'm not sure why you ask the question; it seems like you already have your opinion.

[Dad]

I've seen a lot of Western NGO's and general do-gooders since I've been here and I'd like to know what their purpose is?

Why would you continue to hand money over to the supposedly poor when you can see convoys of top of the range cars and stylish new buildings going up by the dozen nearly every day?

I even saw a Rolls Royce and Ferrari happily parked in my local bank recently.

so, are these people contributing to the poor of their own country do you think, and if not then why should the working man back in the West fund this corrupt narcissistic sham?

Yes in my view NGO's are top heavy like you say. and there are many people who pretend to be do-gooders who actually are extremely well remunerated under the guise of being do-gooders.

However don't put everyone that comes to Cambodia in the same category, because many folks have very honest well meant intentions.

[MoodyMac]

A well remunerated NGO employee probably had the opportunity to become a lawyer, accountant, doctor, businessman, consultant etc, but they chose to study subjects that lead them to work in the development and aid sector. They probably studied hard, and have sacrificed being close to their families in order to attempt to contribute in a positive way to struggling societies. I think they deserve to earn a good salary for the work they do.

Ken Svays comment about giving strikes a chord. It is a similar observation that some make in the church. By far the greatest charitable support for various projects, tends to come from those who don't really have so much to give.

Whinging and complaining about it on the other hand is counter productive. What would Cambodia look like today without foreign aid? Sometimes I think those who complain about NGO's are bitter for some reason. Of course the system isn't perfect. A lot of aid money is funneled into private accounts through salaries and consultancy fees etc. But what is the alternative? Stop giving? Stop aid? Stop education, development and the opportunity for some to receive training and facilities that enable them to stand on their own two feet?

Do you think those flash cars are being driven around by NGO's? I doubt it. More likely they are being driven by someone from a family that has profited from a land concession or sale, who managed to get a lot of real estate years ago when it was dirt cheap, who has govt connections and has profited from foreign investment and business. I doubt the wealth was gained fairly, but to lash out at NGO's and do gooders is simple minded and foolish.

[proyat]

They exist to keep places like fresco and the FCC afloat.

[MoodyMac]

Why shouldn't someone with an internationally recognized degree, and qualifications earn an international standard salary regardless of where they work?

Why pass judgement on them, when they are following their chosen vocation? A vocation that probably began with an urge to help people who are in unfortunate circumstances.

[jm]

A well remunerated NGO employee probably had the opportunity to become a lawyer, accountant, doctor, businessman, consultant etc, but they chose to study subjects that lead them to work in the development and aid sector. They probably studied hard, and have sacrificed being close to their families in order to attempt to contribute in a positive way to struggling societies. I think they deserve to earn a good salary for the work they do.

Ken Svays comment about giving strikes a chord. It is a similar observation that some make in the church. By far the greatest charitable support for various projects, tends to come from those who don't really have so much to give.

Whinging and complaining about it on the other hand is counter productive. What would Cambodia look like today without foreign aid? Sometimes I think those who complain about NGO's are bitter for some reason. Of course the system isn't perfect. A lot of aid money is funneled into private accounts through salaries and consultancy fees etc. But what is the alternative? Stop giving? Stop aid? Stop education, development and the opportunity for some to receive training and facilities that enable them to stand on their own two feet?

Do you think those flash cars are being driven around by NGO's? I doubt it. More likely they are being driven by someone from a family that has profited from a land concession or sale, who managed to get a lot of real estate years ago when it was dirt cheap, who has govt connections and has profited from foreign investment and business. I doubt the wealth was gained fairly, but to lash out at NGO's and do gooders is simple minded and foolish.

I agree, to trash NGOs just for being NGOs is ridiculous. Criticize the government for deciding that health and education is not their job.

[franzjaeger]

Running an NGO can be a great deal. Charitable organizations are not taxed in the US for example.. probably the #1 tax burden there, due to practically the whole of the mid west including god forsaken shxtxxlxs like Bxkxrsfixlx where a plethora of church activity is exercised by all sorts of people with ulterior motives, and with little or no scrutiny, cause god is tax free.. I could imagine being a 'do gooder' around here, with an NGO based over there, would leave a lot a leeway for the less angelic, two faced types of folks among them.. I have for one seen a few peeps, sent out in good deed, helping to improve local infrastructure, at the same time chasing anything between 18-25 around at almost embarrassing levels of indecency.. but i won't name any names here..

[vladimir]

Why shouldn't someone with an internationally recognized degree, and qualifications earn an international standard salary regardless of where they work?

Why pass judgement on them, when they are following their chosen vocation? A vocation that probably began with an urge to help people who are in unfortunate circumstances.

True.

[NedK]

Well, it's like anything really, there are good NGOs who are very effective and make a difference in the lives of Cambodians and who deserve your praise and support.

Then there are the bad NGOs, that are poorly run or possibly corrupt, and were founded to provide jobs and salaries or maybe an ego-boost for the administrators, who get to live and work abroad or travel the world. Or as a front to promote some agenda for whoever/whatever is providing the backing.

Here's a fun-fact: In 2009, India was estimated to have 3.3 million NGOs. Which was one NGO per less than 400 Indians. That is insane. That's more NGOs than they had schools or health clinics. That's a pretty good indicator that an awful lot of them aren't legitimate or effective, given the problems that persist in India despite a veritable army of organizations there purporting to provide aid.

It's the same thing with charities and non-profits the world over. Anybody in America can start their own non-profit. I created one when I was 17 to provide cover for a group of people in the punk scene who had pooled their resources and set up venue to do shows. You just file some paperwork and then you're a 501(c)3 tax exempt non-profit. Ours claimed to be "supporting the arts" as its mission. Sure, why not? Music is art. And the bands playing got most of the money, expenses aside, so that's supporting them. And so we could open a bank account, get a lease under the non-profit's name, all kinds of perks.

On top of that, had I been really pushing it, I could have applied for grant money and stuff. To do punk shows. It also gave us some legal cover for not being a licensed venue. We weren't serving alcohol or anything, but we weren't licensed and nothing was up to code to have up to 500 people in that place, which was probably the case at least a few times. But every event was a fundraiser, not a regular performance, and there was some exception in the city ordinances related to that for non-profits. Anyways, it all worked pretty well for a while, but eventually the cops started asking questions because of the numbers of people we'd have lined up outside and some public disturbances with the crowds. The landlord changed the locks on me after they talked to him, and was probably going to try and claim we owed him money in order for us to get our PA and sound equipment, so I just got inside through less conventional means and took our stuff back. You know, like anybody on the board of a non-profit would do in that situation.

Reminiscing aside, you see my point: Charities in America can be total boondoggles. Usually those ones exist mostly to provide jobs and salaries for flakes. Nobody was making money but the bands playing with mine, but I could imagine a group of less scrupulous (or more capitalist-minded) promoters giving themselves job titles and splitting the profits after expenses. It would have been a fair chunk of change just for booking a show and promoting it, something we all did anyways all the time for free. Pro athletes are notorious for this crap - they create a foundation, give jobs to their whole family with nice salaries, and then use it as a tax dodge.

If you aren't sure about an NGO, do some investigation before supporting them or whatever. Find out what its administrative costs vs. direct aid proportions are in its budget if possible (or whatever the equivalent of that would be for an NGO), or look into who the founder was and what else he'd been up to in life. Find out where their funding comes from - that can tell you a whole lot about what their up to. There is a thing called Charity Navigator that looks at the public filings of charities (in America only maybe) and then gives them ratings. NGOs might be harder to judge if they aren't under the same requirements to disclose their finances, I don't know what kind of legal status they operate under.

The purpose of do-gooders is to do good. But they aren't all do-gooders. Some are do-for-themselvers or fronts for donors with other agendas than the publicly stated one. But you can't paint them with a broad brush, and the really good NGOs are probably helping Cambodia a lot.

[Nasty Canasta]

Ken, MM, GM and Ned youz guyz is right.