| From: |
"Kenneth wong" [ profile ] |
| Subject: |
Re: Re: [wbyouth] News: A bit more give and take for charities?
|
| Sent: |
Nov 5th, 2006 - 04:39:56 |
|
| |
Good day Kevin and friends,
Thanks for your views and comments. I agree that you do have some points
there with are very relevant.
However, allow me to provide you with some comments to your views. I agree
that there are local charities for local communities and international
charities for international purposes. But do think back, if international
charities are doing their fund-raising in Singapore, this may "create a more
competitive environment" and eventually part of donations will goes to the
international charities. This will result in a drop of the donation for
local charities. Do keep in mind that some local charities are 100% run by
private organization with no help from the government. *So, in your view, do
the NGOs eventually be a threat to the local charities?* Because some NGOs
are "well-known" internationally and needless to say that these NGOs will
have an upper-hand over local charities who does not do much publicity due
to lack of funds.
Kevin bro, good example used for the Asia Tsunami Relief Fund. I would
like to add one point is that some Singaporeans are still very passionate on
giving donations to our needy neighboring countries and thus, there's
shouldn't be a issue to have the "distribution ratio" as this may add as a
protection to the "defenseless" local charities. I'm totally agreed to you
point in term of the transparency in reporting their accounts as all donors
have the rights to know where and how the funds are used. Else, the similar
NKF case will re-surface again.
In our point of view, we think that the reason for Singapore Government to
encourage NGOs to set up their base in Singapore is to raise Singapore's
profile within the international community, but will there be more reasons
for the government to do that? We don't know. I don't think so that
Singapore can afford to allow ALL NGOs to set-up bases here due to the
limited resources, target audiences etc. That's probably explained why
Government had to be selective in doing so. A wrong move by the Government
may affect the economy (in term of investing) if NGOs stage
demonstration/riots here and affect the security and political stability
here.
Well, that's only my point of views.
Do feel free to comments and looking forwards to see more emails coming
in.
Thanks a lot and have a nice day ahead!!
Warmest regards,
Kenneth Wong
On 3 Nov 2006 17:17:57 -0000, Kevin Tan <
love.thy.tortoise.as.thyself (at) gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Okay, this is quite an interesting issue, and it seems to me that
> there are two areas that need to be addressed. For starters, I think
> the revisions proposed by Kenneth are not sufficient.
>
> Why should we even HAVE a limit to force funds into local charity
> work? It seems that a 40-60 or any other such split is just being
> conservative for the sake of it. There are local charities for local
> purposes, and international charities for international purposes. We
> hardly live in a society with an uneducated populace that needs to be
> mollycoddled and paternalized into doing things: please, as long as
> the aims and target of funds for these charities remains transparent,
> there is no need to artificially divert these funds via legislation.
>
> In the wake of the Durai debacle, I think that it is this transparency
> that needs work. Organizations should be required to have absolutely
> unambiguous relief funds: the recent Red Cross For Tsunami Relief Fund
> is a good example. Similarly, organizations such as the Rotary Family
> Centre should state clearly where the funds go to, in which country.
> Reserves should be a matter of public record, as well as its
> clientale. All this is to allow donors to make an informed,
> intelligent choice - much better than stuffing it down their throats.
>
> Secondly, lets ask ourselves: what is the purpose of attracting these
> NGOs? Simply put, to raise Singapore's profile within the
> international community. With this purpose in mind, I fail to see why
> the EDB is expressly refusing to allow political and environmental
> activist groups to set up regional bases here. "Trust image and
> logistical positioning" only goes so far. I think the recent World
> Bank Summit and the blitz of negative publicity regarding banning the
> accredited NGOs shows us how it is useless to pay internationalism lip
> service, all the while sticking to the siege mentality that "everyone
> wants order".
>
> Having more NGOs is not going to bring Singapore any additional
> economic development, especially if we have to amend the 80-20 rule to
> get them to come in the first place. So unless the ruling is willing
> to go all the way and allow ALL NGOs in, its going to be a repeat of
> the World Bank affair, and backfire on the country.
>
> and thats my two cents,
> Kevin Tan
>
>
>
> On 1 Nov 2006 12:05:38 -0000, Kenneth wong
> wrote:
> > Hi guys and Benise,
> >
> > Also, interesting comments made by you. Here's my point of view to
> your
> > question below and let's see whether you all agree with that..
> >
> > With regards to the issue of donation of funds. Yes, agreeable that
> every
> > cent raised by the NGOs count and if a fraction of the money goes to the
> > local community, this might reduce their efforts in helping the
> developing
> > countries. In my opinion, TOTAL ELIMINATION of the ratio is not really
> > feasible. Level-up the ratio to 60-40 or 40-60 might works. Maybe
> government
> > can help the NGOs in subsidising their
> > electricity/water/rental/transport/phone/broadband bills etc. In this
> way,
> > NGOs can contribute the fraction of the funds they rasied to local
> community
> > but in another way, the government is helping them to cut their overhead
> > cost. Wouldn't it be better? Or another method is that *IF* the NGOs
> goes
> > for *public fund-raising*, the ration method will apply. If public
> wishes
> > that they donation will goes 100% to those less-developing countries,
> they
> > can make a *DIRECT DONATION* to the NGOs by cheque/credit cards etc.
> >
> > Singapore government in one way would like to encourage NGOs to set-up
> > their base here but in another way, they do not wish to see that 100% of
> the
> > resources will to be use at 'other' countries nor they want to see any
> > protests being held by the NGOs. It's quite contridicting. But I hope
> that
> > my suggestion as above may reduce the 'gap'.
> >
> > With regards to the support of Singapore government to the natural
> > disaster at our neighbouring countries, no doubts that the government is
> > helping out, BUT that doesn't mean that NGOs need not participate. Due
> to
> > the 'limited' resources and contacts from NGOs, the efforts from them
> are
> > limited in someway. Singapore Armed Forces / Government will play a
> 'bigger'
> > role in co-ordinating with local authority and help them to set-up
> > communication infrastructure (if the disaster had damaged one) e.g.
> > controlling air-traffic, transporting basic necessities to the affected
> > area, maintaining local security and provide medical care etc.
> >
> > Then you may ask what role does the NGOs play? Well, one way is that
> they
> > act as a 'extra hand' to distribute the necessities to the affected
> people
> > and attending to their needs and act as the 'middleman' between them and
> the
> > local authority and maybe 'add' pressure to the local authority if they
> are
> > not doing anything about it or taking their own sweet time doing it.
> >
> > With regards to the selection of NGOs, my personal view is that
> Singapore
> > can't afford to make demostration / riots as this will 'shake' our local
> > economy and create a massive damage that we had established in the past
> 40
> > years. That's why government are selective in 'choosing' NGOs. They
> don't
> > encourage 'violent' NGOs but rather a more calmer NGOs who does not put
> up
> > demonstration so often?
> >
> > Any comments from you guys? The above statements are just base on my
> > limited knowledge and so do enlighten me with more thoughts and
> suggestions.
> >
> > Warmest regards,
> > Kenneth Wong
> >
> >
> > On 31 Oct 2006 13:53:05 -0000, Bernise Ang wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks, Kenneth,
> > >
> > > Interesting comments.. I'll throw in 1 cent in response --
> > >
> > > I also agree that the base country of the NGO should benefit from
> > > hosting the NGO, and it makes sense to make adjustments to the 80-20
> > > ratio to make Singapore more hospitable to NGOs.
> > >
> > > I suppose one issue is that there seems to be a (possible)
> > > contradiction in this approach: This whole exercise (according to
> > > TODAY) is an effort to turn Singapore into an NGO hub, and attract
> > > more international NGOs to set up camp here; yet, many of these very
> > > NGOs work on issues focused on the developing world. By virtue of
> > > their mission, their beneficiaries are those living in our less
> > > privileged neighbours (and beyond) - not (necessarily) Singapore.
> > >
> > > Try putting yourself in the shoes of such an NGO: You don't have much
> > > money, fundraising* is tough, most importantly -- you are accountable
> > > to your donors and/or members. For your donors who expect that their
> > > money is going into food relief in Niger, or HIV/AIDS prevention
> > > access in Colombia, or ICT (information communication technology)
> > > infrastructure in rural Nepal - they who fund your projects are gonna
> > > damn well want their money to go where they donated to.
> > >
> > > If this were a hypothetical role-play exercise in GP or civics/social
> > > studies class - how would you weigh up the factors of whether or not
> > > to base your NGO in Singapore?
> > >
> > > 2 other quick ponderables:
> > >
> > > i) Agreed that Singapore govt is particularly pro-active in helping
> > > our ASEAN neighbours in times of disaster. Q: If governments are
> > > involved in disaster relief, does that mean NGOs shouldn't be
> > > involved? What experiences (or not) might NGOs on the field bring to
> > > the situation that might be of value to local communities (if they
> are)?
> > >
> > > ii) "...the EDB is selective of the type of NGO it wants. Ruling out
> > > political organisations and environmental activism groups..." (from
> > > the TODAY article)
> > > --> Any thoughts as to why this special exclusion against political
> > > organisations and enviro groups? What might that mean for a country's
> > > civil society sector without such groups (not just Singapore)?
> > >
> > > Hmm, more questions that I'd thought... interested to see what y'all
> > > think!
> > >
> > > Bernise
> > >
> > > * See comments about restrictions in public fundraising by Elaine/
> > > World Vision
> > >
> > >
> > > On 31 Oct 2006, at 12:36 AM, Kenneth wong wrote:
> > >
> > > > Replies to this message will be sent to the group by default.
> > > > The sender of this message can be contacted at
> > > > .
> > > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Hi Benise and friends,
> > > >
> > > > Just some pointers to share with you all with regards to the
> > > > below-mentioned issue.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the ruling of "80-20", I guess that Singapore
> > > > Government could
> > > > make some amendment to the margin, maybe say "60-40" or "50-50". But
> > > > eventually I agreed that some funds being raised SHOULD BE used for
> > > > local
> > > > community. Do keep in mind that in any case of natural disasters
> > > > happen in
> > > > our neighbouring countries, some Singaporeans are always pro-active
> in
> > > > contributing in whatever ways they can, be it in term of monetary,
> > > > basic
> > > > necessities etc.
> > > >
> > > > With regards to the below sentence:
> > > > "We'd like to show that Singapore NGOs do not just take care of old
> > > > folks. We participate regionally in disaster-response situations.
> But
> > > > this type of NGO won't be able to meet the 80-20 rule," he said."
> > > >
> > > > I would like to comment that singapore government is alway
> > > > providing help
> > > > to our neighbouring countries in term of medical cares (by
> > > > volunteers and
> > > > SAF). Good examples are the Asia Tsunami, earthquake etc.
> > > >
> > > > I would not comment on Singapore Government for
> > > > banning 27 accredited CSO members as it very subjective.
> > > >
> > > > Let's get this discussion going!
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to hearing some views and pointer from you guys.
> > > >
> > > > Warmest regards,
> > > > Kenneth Wong
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > * Powered By TIG Groups http://groups.takingitglobal.org/
> > > * Group Archives: http://groups.takingitglobal.org/wbyouth/messages/
> > > * To unsubscribe, email wbyouth-unsubscribe (at) groups.takingitglobal.org
> > > * My subscription settings, wbyouth-settings (at) groups.takingitglobal.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Warmest regards,
> > Kenneth Wong
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ________ __
> / ___/ / 0 | _|||_
> /___/_____ | -/ / 0
> < _____________/ -__/ _________
> |_|_| |_|_| ____| _| |_|___
>
>
--
Warmest regards,
Kenneth Wong
|
|
Message
back to messages
