Making a difference beyond 'voluntourism'

Volunteer trips are just a start; think long term to effect real change
Cassandra Chew, Straits Times 20 Apr 09;

I HAVE a cause.

I believe children should not be exploited, especially in a sexual way, and have been educating myself on how I can help prevent this.

I have found that a lot of it comes down to 'making poverty history', as the global campaign goes, though I have no illusions of seeing this happen in my lifetime.

Still, it does not stop busloads of young hopefuls like myself from believing we can make someone else's life better. So we venture to neighbouring countries like Cambodia to do some good, or so we think.

Last month, I visited anti-child trafficking organisation Riverkids just when a group of international school students were there to volunteer for a few days.

Riverkids provides social and educational support for slum families in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh, in the hope that the children will not be sold or drop out of school to find work.

The volunteering students were a sweet group, genuinely interested in making the children happy by playing games, going on outings and taking pictures with them. But I was painfully conscious of the poverty that surrounded me and could not help but wonder:

What happens after they leave?

Overseas service learning projects, or 'voluntourism', have become increasingly popular among secondary school and junior college students.

School groups generally visit sites in nearby countries to build homes, dig wells, paint murals and interact with the people - activities that make for the 'real' way to see a country, as some put it.

I have no doubt the work these volunteers do in the few days does make a difference to lives of the people there.

But I am also aware poverty is a result of systemic problems in a country, like corruption and weak governance; something a happy mural will not change.

Voluntourism can be a starting point for us to taste and see what life outside of our wealthy bubble is like, but if we truly want to help, we cannot let such short trips abroad be our end point.

Rather, we should think of these 'sampler' trips as launch pads for thought and action in the long term about what we can do to effect positive change.

One model I have come across is a small Singaporean-owned social enterprise called Changiville, a guesthouse in Phnom Penh where girls from Riverkids learn hospitality through a vocational skills programme. This enables them to find steady jobs that pay at least US$65 (S$98) a month after they graduate.

Having job skills means they do not need to turn to prostitution for a living.

Efforts like these are part of a slow and long process. While Changiville's programmes do not sound as glamorous as roughing it out in slums and brothels for months, they address the gaps that desperately need to be filled.

In some ways, Changiville's strategic use of resources and understanding of the community's needs can bring about change more effectively than any short trip to an orphanage would.

The difference is in their end goal: to make the community self-sufficient.

All I ask is that on your next voluntourist trip, consider your volunteer site's long-term goals and find out how you can be an effective part of them.

Stuffed toys and tubs of Play-Doh are fun for a while, but when the dust settles, would you have left behind a legacy?

'Voluntourism' projects must help recipients in long term
Straits Times Forum 24 Apr 09;

I READ with interest Monday's report, 'Making a difference beyond 'voluntourism''.

I agree that any do-good project must be long term. Otherwise, it will just become a visit without substance, and leave nothing but an afterglow for the volunteers to talk about.

First, we need to consider if such projects make the recipients self-sufficient. This may be a tall order, but nothing worth doing comes easy.

No doubt, schoolchildren cannot get away for months or a whole year, but the project must be such that many groups can sustain it for long periods. Otherwise, it can end up as a 'hit-and-run' operation that achieves nothing.

Second, we must guard against raising recipients' expectations, which can do more harm than good. It may even give rise to resentment against the volunteers.

Some visits end up spoiling the recipients in poor countries. The visitors give them sweets - and ruin their teeth. I heard that one group of dentists went to a poor country armed with Oral-B toothbrushes and Sensodyne toothpaste. I wonder what would happen when these items run out.

Instead, they could have promoted oral hygiene on a shoestring budget, using probably local methods, but teaching the people how to care for their teeth.

Finally, students going overseas on mercy missions should have served in local homes for at least a year. They would then have proved that they are interested in helping the needy.

Murali Sharma