Posts tagged under News reviews
The 100 Best NGOs – but where’s Southeast Asia?
The Global Journal has published a list of the Top 100 NGOs according to their definitions, and research criteria. The list is topped by the Wikimedia Foundation, followed by Partners in Health, Oxfam, BRAC and the International Rescue Committee. Unsurprisingly, the list is dominated by US organisations (37), followed by UK (14), Switzerland (9) and France (4); Rest of the world (29). Southeast Asia is sparsely represented: There is Digital Divide Data, a social enterprise from Cambodia, Friends-International, an INGO also based in Cambodia, and the Population and Community Development Association from Thailand.
This new ranking is supposed to represent the top 100 leading actors of the non-profit world:
The first international ranking of its kind, this exclusive in-depth feature will no doubt stimulate debate, while providing academics, diplomats, policymakers, international organizations and the private sector an insight into the ever changing dynamics and innovative approaches of the non-profit world and its 100 leading actors.
In his blog A view from the cave, Tom Murphy raises a few important questions:
- What indicators are used to produce the ranking? (staff size? funding? no. of projects?)
- Why is the ranking methodology not published in detail?
Indigenous people and REDD
There’s an interesting article on the Jakarta Globe about REDD and the need to hear the “voices of the indigenous people”.
Although the issues in the article aren’t exactly new (the anti-REDD movement has been around for a while), the article does a good job of re-raising quite a number of questions, especially about how governments should deal with indigenous people.
Here’s a supplementary reading courtesy of the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), the NGO mentioned in the article, as well as another one by NO REDD. Although the pieces are clearly skewed in support of the rights of indigenous people, it still provides a good overview of the problem.
It’s quite difficult to figure out how to feel about this recent development. On one hand, one cannot help but sympathize with the plight of indigenous people, having been marginalized and exploited throughout history. It would probably only be fair that their voice be heard in the REDD negotiations, as well as in the implementation of individual REDD projects. Their lives are sure to be affected by REDD projects, so involving them in the design and implementation is likely to improve the outcomes for everyone involved.
Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 is out!
… and it seems that not much has changed.
Here’s a more detailed look. The numbers shown below follow the format of “score (rank)”.
Corruption perceptions in ASEAN: more of the same.
As I said before, not much has changed. ASEAN remains just about as corrupt (or non-corrupt) as it was last year. Some minor changes in ranks and in scores, but is probably attributable to the methodological tweaks that Transparency International makes from year to year (they even write disclaimers on their reports to that effect). The full report is available here.
So, what does this lack of significant movement imply for the countries and the region? For individual countries, it could mean that anti-corruption policies are not working as well as the governments expect. It could also be used to explain the successes or failures in implementing public policies over the past year.
Perhaps, the best use of this year’s CPI is as a warning to citizens in Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia, as well as potential investors into the region: “Brace yourselves. It hasn’t gotten better in the last year, and it probably won’t get much better soon.”
Poverty-environment problem?
Our upcoming issue on water governance (look out for this one at the end of the year) includes an interview with the head of an environmental NGO based in Jakarta. In the interview, she argues that one of the reasons for the slow uptake of environmental awareness in cities such as Jakarta is poverty.
Poverty, she stipulates, means that people’s priorities are set on sustenance, survival and cost-minimization, which in turn means that they are unwilling to partake in environmentally responsible actions (often quite costly). Whether it is living in makeshift housing on the riverbank (which compromises the state of the river), or haphazard disposal of household waste, these actions are chosen instead of their environmentally responsible alternatives because they are cheaper.
If this is true, it explains this failure in Ho Chi Minh City’s waste collection program. HCM City administrators have found that waste collection fee targets are not being met, signifying a resistance to the program. Although delinquent companies are partly to blame for being unwilling to pay the required amounts, there are also many problems in collecting fees from the general public.
ASEAN’s risky gamble with Burma
Last friday, I came across an article by Julie Sheetz, graduate student at Harvard University over at the East Asia Forum. She provides an interesting perspective on ASEAN’s move to award the 2014 chairmanship to Burma in her post titled: “Burma: a test that ASEAN may be failing”. While 2011 has brought some positive signs of improvement in the domestic political environment and small steps to reallow Aung San Suu Kyi’s party to participate in the country’s politics, it is far from clear what the final outcome will be. Sheetz argues that:
Burma’s track record is depressing and ASEAN is exposing itself to a lot of risk by jumping into the fray of Burma’s domestic politics and international reputation.
and further down [...]
ASEAN is gambling with the progress it has made over the past decade in consolidating its relationship with key dialogue partners and regularising its global interactions
The pendulum could swing both ways with this bold move. ASEAN’s decision might help to open up Burma and trigger improvements in political freedom and human rights or the move might have been too early and ASEAN is falling pray to political gambit from Burma’s leaders?
Singapore turns to microcredit for its poor?
How many can benefit from this?
The per capita GDP figure can be very misleading in that regard. According to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore only about one third of the labour force pays income tax which kicks in above $20,000; Thus more than 2/3 of the labour force fall below the $30,000 limit and thus qualify for the MCBS scheme.
The interest rate will range between 8% and 12% annual interest, while loan repayments are supposed to be made biweekly to instill budgeting discipline and avoid overwhelming the borrower with the monthly repayment amount. The scheme will also provide complimentary business training after successful loan applications.
The intial seed funding will suffice for a maximum of 1000 borrowers and will serve to evaluate the success of what could be called “a banking innovation for the poor in Singapore”. Given that entrepreneurship does not come automatically just because there are loans available, it remains to be seen whether this initiative will be succesful.
‘We expect this scheme to help Singaporeans become self-reliant by starting up or even expanding their existing micro-businesses,’ said Mr Koh Kar Siong, managing director and head of POSB when the scheme was announced.
The plight of migrants in the Thai floods
The flooding of Bangkok and the resulting stream of Thais seeking refuge out of town has dominated almost all international news coverage of the evolving disaster… however one problem almost overlooked by the media is the situation of Thailand’s migrant population, in particular low-skilled migrant workers, both legally registered and unregistered. An article from the IRIN News portal highlighted the issue of undocumented workers being exploited post-floods.
Picture by dany13
Thousands of Burmese migrants have been fleeing from flood-affected provinces such as Ayutthaya, Nakhon, Sawan, Nakhon Pathom and Pathum Thani, after their factories were submerged by water, often without getting paid their outstanding wages.
Lightbulbs
Two news articles over the weekend talked about lightbulbs, one in Singapore, the other in China.
Singapore wants to utilize corporate sponsors to help install energy efficient lightbulbs to low-income households. The rationale: the new bulbs will conserve energy and also lower the households’ utility bills. Quick aside: the article also further highlights the Singaporean obsession with acronyms (the program, S.W.I.T.C.H, stands for “Simple Ways I Take To Change My Habits”).
China has taken a very different approach: it wants to ban the imports and sales of incandescent lightbulbs in the country. The ban will be rolled out in phases, starting with banning lightbulbs over 100W next year, and eventually banning all bulbs above 15W by 2016.
Which of these is the better approach?
Short term winner: Singapore. The impact of the Singaporean program is more direct, as the bulbs used inside the homes are changed right away. The poor feel the cost reductions right away, especially because they don’t actually have to pay for the lightbulbs. In China, on the other hand, households will continue using incandescent lightbulbs while they still can.
