NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

This is where our community discusses almost anything! While we're mainly a Cambodia expat discussion forum and talk about expat life here, we debate about almost everything. Even if you're a tourist passing through Southeast Asia and want to connect with expatriates living and working in Cambodia, this is the first section of our site that you should check out. Our members start their own discussions or post links to other blogs and/or news articles they find interesting and want to chat about. So join in the fun and start new topics, or feel free to comment on anything our community members have already started! We also have some Khmer members here as well, but English is the main language used on CEO. You're welcome to have a look around, and if you decide you want to participate, you can become a part our international expat community by signing up for a free account.

NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

More good than harm
6
33%
More harm than good
9
50%
Don't know as I haven't got enough information to make a decision
3
17%
 
Total votes: 18
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by juansweetpotato »

Was just reading TOF and thought the debate on Sunrise was very interesting.
It seems the standard of poverty porn that Oxfam, Help the Children etc used in the past has been taken on by more than one smaller NGO.
As far as Orphanages go, they seem to be a growing business inspite of a recent UNICEF report from 2015 which advises;
In keeping with this and the agency’s commitment to adapt to the evolving realities of the AIDS crisis, UNICEF commissioned an analysis of population household surveys across 36 countries. Designed to compare current conditions of orphans and non-orphans, the global analysis suggests we should further expand our scope, focusing less on the concept of orphanhood and more on a range of factors that render children vulnerable. These factors include the family's ownership of property, the poverty level of the household, the child’s relationship to the head of the household, and the education level of the child’s parents, if they are living.
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html

Even the aid sector is now saying orphanages are not a good way to go for most orphans and that more support in the parent's or careers life is a better option as ;
Of the more than 132 million children classified as orphans, only 13 million have lost both parents. Evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of orphans are living with a surviving parent grandparent, or other family member. 95 per cent of all orphans are over the age of five.
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html

As for myself, I find it very hard to know, as most of the things we have to tell whether they are doing a good job in the aid sector are never transparent. I do think that medical NGO's do a great job, especially the smaller one's where doctors use their vacations to offer surgery etc to remote rural areas in Africa for example. Unfortunately the larger medical organizations have been tarred by the CIA ( Afghanistan) so I'm not too sure about them now also.

I wonder what others feel? as it's hard to think logically without all the facts.
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
mammothboy2
Expatriate
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by mammothboy2 »

Formulating a rational reply to the question is impossible.

Some NGOs do sterling work on a thin shoestring, others are known to be deeply corrupt.

Then there is - for example - World Vision, run by religious neurotics of the nastiest kind, yet
World Vision certainly saved literally thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Cambodian lives.
mammothboy2
Expatriate
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by mammothboy2 »

Formulating a rational reply to the question is impossible.

Some NGOs do sterling work on a thin shoestring, others are known to be deeply corrupt.

Then there is - for example - World Vision, run by religious neurotics of the nastiest kind, yet
World Vision certainly saved literally thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Cambodian lives.
mammothboy2
Expatriate
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by mammothboy2 »

# APOLOGY FOR THE DOUBLE SUBMISSION: A STICKY KEYBOARD WAS RESPONSIBLE

Four excellent NGOs are funded (in very small part) by Quiz Nights at the IVY GUESTHOUSE in Siem Reap,
starting at 8.15pm every Thursday
User avatar
phuketrichard
Expatriate
Posts: 16790
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:17 pm
Reputation: 5733
Location: Atlantis
Aruba

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by phuketrichard »

mammothboy2 wrote:Formulating a rational reply to the question is impossible.

Some NGOs do sterling work on a thin shoestring, others are known to be deeply corrupt.

Then there is - for example - World Vision, run by religious neurotics of the nastiest kind, yet
World Vision certainly saved literally thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Cambodian lives.
They also helped many many thousands after the tsunami in Thailand and Sri lanka,
BUT they would only assist those that were Christians, ( saw this with my own eyes here)
and they built some nice house as well and the top officials get paid well.

As above, some are good, some suck and prey on sensational news to drive donations

i didn't vote
In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. HST
User avatar
franzjaeger
Expatriate
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 8:32 am
Reputation: 17
United States of America

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by franzjaeger »

Some of them are real bad, skimming all the money as so to fly first class and stay at five star hotels, only giving a fraction to their cause.
I wouldn't have the heart and spirit to do that, as I don't have a need for luxurious comforts myself, despite having had lots of access to them in my life.

But who knows if you are introduced to that lifestyle, it'd be hard to say no, just like being a politician can make one rich on telling lies to the public all your life.


https://www.charitywatch.org/home


User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by juansweetpotato »

phuketrichard wrote:
mammothboy2 wrote:Formulating a rational reply to the question is impossible.

Some NGOs do sterling work on a thin shoestring, others are known to be deeply corrupt.

Then there is - for example - World Vision, run by religious neurotics of the nastiest kind, yet
World Vision certainly saved literally thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Cambodian lives.
They also helped many many thousands after the tsunami in Thailand and Sri lanka,
BUT they would only assist those that were Christians, ( saw this with my own eyes here)
and they built some nice house as well and the top officials get paid well.

As above, some are good, some suck and prey on sensational news to drive donations

i didn't vote
Interesting that you mention the Tsunami as there is a story I can relate by an English expat who benefited from the aid money in Thailand. He was telling me he was lucky and didn't suffer any damage and that his car went in for a regular service a few months after the disaster. His AC was broken along with a couple of other things. The mechanic asked him if he wanted his AC fixed and he replied that he didn't think he would have enough money for it at that time seeing as it was going to be a few hundred dollars. The mechanic said, "No worry, we'll put it down as Tsunami damage and you'll get it repaired for free. Which he did.

This contrasts greatly with fishermen I met who's boats were completely destroyed but didn't get a penny because they didn't meet the criteria for reasons that sounded all too normal .Something about certain beaches only being covered. Eg If your boat was just on the wrong edge of those designated beaches you wouldn't get anything. One local fisherman I met had just spent all his money doing his boat up for it to be smashed to pieces. He got nothing.

Also in India, I met a guy who told me "all these new fishing boats with big outboards you see were bought with tsunami money, but it never hit this beach and their old boats weren't destroyed.

I also remember the then Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, talking on the BBC News about how less than one penny in a every donated relief pound goes to the actual cause, the rest apparently buzzes around the Swiss banking circuits. Too much donated money in hidden accounts?
Last edited by juansweetpotato on Wed May 25, 2016 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
User avatar
juansweetpotato
Expatriate
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:45 pm
Reputation: 75

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by juansweetpotato »

franzjaeger wrote:Some of them are real bad, skimming all the money as so to fly first class and stay at five star hotels, only giving a fraction to their cause.
I wouldn't have the heart and spirit to do that, as I don't have a need for luxurious comforts myself, despite having had lots of access to them in my life.

But who knows if you are introduced to that lifestyle, it'd be hard to say no, just like being a politician can make one rich on telling lies to the public all your life.


https://www.charitywatch.org/home


That reminds me of one of my best friends in Glasgow who decided to move up from a carer to a junior manager for a local council funded project in Greenwich, Scotland. He was quite nervous at the meetings being his first job in his new role. He kept complaining to me that he was asking people for their data and input but was not getting anywhere. He was stressing out because he felt that it was his approach that was at fault.

Anyhow, a few months down the line the director and assistant and a couple of others were had-up for misappropriation of funds. Apparently they were charging their holidays and extravagant lunches etc to the project. One of them even charged a return air ticket to Australia so they could see their relatives. The project was for the underprivileged kids in a low employment opportunity area. The people stealing the money from the babes' mouths so to speak, were people who had come from the same area and knew all the problems that the kids faced and the project was set up to help redress.

End result? As so often happens in these cases (there are an awful lot of them) the project was disbanded and the perpetrators of the fraud were employed on other projects elsewhere. Why? Because the people who employed them would have been shown up, so it was all brushed under the carpet.

Meanwhile, my very good-hearted mate was left an emotional wreck by the whole thing seeing as they had tried to put some of the blame onto him.

He gave up charity/ aid work altogether and bought a boat which we both enjoyed exploring the west-coast of Scotland in.
"Can you spare some cutter for an old man?"
ot mien kampf
Expatriate
Posts: 573
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:27 pm
Reputation: 0

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by ot mien kampf »

The whole "NGOs are bad rar rar rar" headless chicken routine is tiring.

Of all the many NGOs on Cambodia, there's a handful that are so bent and damaging they should close ASAP (SISHA, APLE, a few proselytizing religious ones) and maybe another handful that are now rendered useless (all the orphanage ones) but the rest are helpful and suffer from graft that is no worse than any other industry in Cambodia.

Friends Inc. has been very helpful working with the police on low profile rape and murder cases that would once have been ignored, LICAHDO is so good at chasing down bad things that they've scared the government (a good sign) and the countless rural development charities are the sole reason why some communities have any education or utilities at all.
User avatar
LTO
Expatriate
Posts: 1383
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 10:28 pm
Reputation: 9
Location: KH
Contact:

Re: NGO's more harm than good? Or more good than harm?

Post by LTO »

ot mien kampf wrote:The whole "NGOs are bad rar rar rar" headless chicken routine is tiring.

Of all the many NGOs on Cambodia, there's a handful that are so bent and damaging they should close ASAP (SISHA, APLE, a few proselytizing religious ones) and maybe another handful that are now rendered useless (all the orphanage ones) but the rest are helpful and suffer from graft that is no worse than any other industry in Cambodia.

Friends Inc. has been very helpful working with the police on low profile rape and murder cases that would once have been ignored, LICAHDO is so good at chasing down bad things that they've scared the government (a good sign) and the countless rural development charities are the sole reason why some communities have any education or utilities at all.
Yes, the question is way too broad.
LTO Cambodia Blog

"Kafka is 'outdone' in our country, the new fatherland of Angkor" - Norodom Sihanouk
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bobby66, Khmu Nation, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1330 guests