Top Executive/CEO? Its not suppose to be a business, its a charity not a corporation. Think Gandhi when you think salary, did he pay himself thousands of dollars to help people?

I got a little turned off here in Snookyville when I see the local head of an NGO living in a palace and driving a Lexis. How many people/children would the money for this palace/Lexis feed, cloth or help start a business. I see a few NGOs helping, but most seem to be self serving money making machines.

My favorite sign:

Here's a major problem that I see with "Westerners" when they talk about a rich man having a nice car, saying they should give it away to the poor hungry children. It doesn't do a damn thing for the person receiving it. If you think the only way to make money in Cambodia is to work for a dollar at a sweatshop, then open your eyes. "Us foreigner charities" are not that important, nor are they a major impact on the country's economy, etc.

To see what I mean, take a walk down any one street in Phnom Penh and then look at the business. Every business you see that doesn't have an NGO at it's head is a business that makes money, employs workers, and keeps the country going. Every lorry with a Khmer at the wheel is a Khmer with a job and a salary (higher than a dollar a day). Every tuk tuk driver is a Khmer who's made enough to buy a $1,000 tuk tuk and several $100 bike. Every Dream on the road (motodop), every Camry (taxi), clothes shop, coffee shop, drink cart, etc, all of those are ways to make money, and all of those people have made it for the most part on their own. I know many personally, I know it's possible to make it, and in fact here in Cambodia it's relatively easy to make money compared to some other grossly overpopulated countries.

This isn't to say there isn't a place for a charity to give to some person who has had an unfortunate run in with life and is at the bottom. By the way, CCF offers things like education, training, assistance to thousands of kids (way more than $93k worth, which honestly if you think about it, $365 a year is nothing and will help someone nothing) so that kind of money is chicken change, especially when you see how many businessmen here (excluded govt officials) with their own Lexus, Range Rover, Porsche etc who have made it on their own vs. getting handouts.

Point is, if you want to try to just give money to poor people, go ahead, you're not the first to try. However, you're not going to make a difference here or anywhere, just create a few dozen people dependent on you who expect a free meal whenever they see you. No help, no one wins.

I agree with you AE86 on the principles of industry as against charity

However while it may not be as significant in the overall picture I still think the sheer scale of the NGO/"Charity" sector in Cambodia is what I find dangerous and like nothing I've witnessed anywhere in other LDC's I've worked, dangerous to the extent that it creates a dependency victim culture in order to suit it's own agenda and those employed in it. I find it an indictment of Cambodia's situation than an NGO could still be considered a career option for a young person, to me if the country was progressing they wouldn't really be needed in anywhere near the scale they are now in say 5-10 years time. It's a false economy that relies on a significant NGO sector for any period of time, and I'm not talking about development/infrastructure aid which is an entirely different thing and most definately needed.

Gaudente wrote:

AE86 wrote:@Gaudete

Give a Cambodian a dollar and you feed them for a day, teach them to make a dollar...

... a day working in some sweatshop , like Somali Mam does ? ("rescued" prostitutes must be really happy to leave a 20$/hour job for a 1$/day new one that is also more hard )
Don't worry they are already sweating somewhere for that dollar , the problem is it's not enough... so will you use 93,500$ to give 256 poor people 1$ a day for an year or rather pay a salary to a guy who by the way surely wastes a lot more money beyond his outrageous paycheque ?

Ok, let's say we want to give 256 poor people a dollar a day for a year. Now we have to decide two things. 1) How do we distribute the money, and 2) how do we get the money.

Someone will have to distribute the money. Let's say we do it monthly instead of daily to make it easier. Someone will have to choose the people, and hand out the money. And there will need to be someone to check on that person. We will have to be sure that the person we give the $93,500 doesn't just pocket the money or give it to his friends. After all we have decided we want to give it to 256 people in need.

So how do we find this person or persons, setup the banking, etc. We have to pay them something. Or maybe you will quit your job and do it for free. Hmm give someone 93,500 to distribute to strangers without checking on them. How well do you think that will actually work? In practice of course it will not work. It will cost us money to find the people, distribute the money, handle the money, do the accounting, provide documentation to prospective donors, etc.

Second, we need to get that $93,500 somehow, plus of course the overhead needed to pay for the above. How will we do that? You will find, if you don't already know, it is very hard to get people to donate to your cause, when they have so many other choices. Maybe setup a website, start an NGO? We will need someone in an area where people actually have enough money to give. Maybe the U.S. or another developed country. We will need to advertise, tell people about what we do, and why giving 256 people a dollar a day is a great idea.

The donors will also want to know that the money is well spent. Is the money actually being distributed as advertised? What are those 256 people doing with the money, how has it improved their lives? We will need someone to provide the documentation and proof of these activities. We will need to employ people then in this high cost developed country to do all this, and to get that $93,500 that we want to give away.

But now of course, we need much more than $93,500. We need to pay for the planning, distribution and validation, and we need to pay for promoting our project and actually obtaining the money. This does not even include the taxes we have to pay, or the cost to register an organization that does not need to pay tax and all of the annual accounting expenses that entails.

If you have a better idea, everyone would be happy to hear it.

so we should pay 93,500 bucks for opening a bank account and organizing some handout ? and please note that the 93,500 bucks are just for the chief, those who actually do the job would of course cost other money.
Handing out money is not so difficult. Once you have the 256 poor, you just open them a savings account with a microfinance institution depositing 30 bucks each, then you refill the accounts every month. Simple and free of charge.
As for finding the 256 beneficiaries, what makes you think that imprisoning children and prostitutes in an ad hoc compound is better than just giving a cash handout ?
You want to avoid the lazy no-doers ? Then just help who is already working for an insufficient salary, for example the women working in textile factories doing only 2$ a day , they would really enjoy an extra daily buck and perhaps they would not get shot upon by the police when striking for a raise.

Gaudente wrote:so we should pay 93,500 bucks for opening a bank account and organizing some handout ? and please note that the 93,500 bucks are just for the chief, those who actually do the job would of course cost other money.
Handing out money is not so difficult. Once you have the 256 poor, you just open them a savings account with a microfinance institution depositing 30 bucks each, then you refill the accounts every month. Simple and free of charge.
As for finding the 256 beneficiaries, what makes you think that imprisoning children and prostitutes in an ad hoc compound is better than just giving a cash handout ?
You want to avoid the lazy no-doers ? Then just help who is already working for an insufficient salary, for example the women working in textile factories doing only 2$ a day , they would really enjoy an extra daily buck and perhaps they would not get shot upon by the police when striking for a raise.

I am just wondering who the "you" is that you are referring to. How do you find that "you" and how do you pay them? And what about that microfinance institution, you think they don't have overhead. I have worked with one, and they have expenses in Cambodia and in the U.S. So you are just hiding your costs there? And as for "imprisoning children and prostitutes in an ad hoc compound," I don't recall anyone actually suggesting that. It is called a "straw man" and won't gain much credibility for your argument. Again as was mentioned by another poster a lot of people have big ideas and think how simple they are to achieve, but have never actually accomplished anything. Are you one of these?

When YOU have done what you think is so simple and cheap, then you will have some credibility. I have had my own business 35 years and over that time have seen so may people with "big" ideas who talk the talk, but never walk the walk. After a while it is just so tiring to listen to.

Gaudente wrote:oh, experienced he is for sure ... in conning donors who think their money goes into charity rather than his deep pockets.

He (Scott Neeson) left a 7 figure annual salary in which he schmoozed with movie stars in Hollywood.

Hmm yes, what a crook.

Some posters are complete idiots who know nothing.

A better question would be: what percentage of income is directed towards salaries compared with intended beneficiaries.

Personally, I DO have a problem with someone earning that amount when the expressed aim of the NGO is to 'help Cambodia'.

When salaries are that high, they start to attract the wrong kind of people who want to work in NGOs purely for money.

It's like a guy becoming a lawyer or doctor wit the sole aim of making money, immoral.

vladimir wrote:A better question would be: what percentage of income is directed towards salaries compared with intended beneficiaries.

Personally, I DO have a problem with someone earning that amount when the expressed aim of the NGO is to 'help Cambodia'.

When salaries are that high, they start to attract the wrong kind of people who want to work in NGOs purely for money.

It's like a guy becoming a lawyer or doctor wit the sole aim of making money, immoral.

Not necessarily. Sometimes NGOs want the best people, and in order to get them, they need to pay. It's still a paid job, after all.

Geez. Some of you guys, your negative comments just floor me. If you think this is so easy and cheap to do lets see any of you do it. In his audited 2013 report for the year ended 2013 he took in contributions of over 10 million dollars! The year before he raised almost 5 million. You guys really think just anyone can do this? that is easy to raise this kind of money? Do you? Try it! He spent $3.4 million on programs in 2012 which grew to $5.3 million in 2014. At then end of the year 2013 he had over $8.7 million in net assets. As for use of the funds Charity Navigator gives it about as high a ranking as you can get. This is about as well run a charity as you can find, check out his board of directors, who by the way, must approve the expenses and programs. You guys should get a grip on reality. I don't know why I even bother posting.