How to Run Any Organisation

This post is an extract of the speech delivered during the AARRO Conference in Accra, Ghana on 16th March 1990.

Change

At the CIRDAP meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam in December last year, I had said that many changes have taken place in politics, science, social developments and natural calamities. In politics, there is only Vietnam now and there is to be one Germany soon.

In science, it is worthwhile to note that in 1900, it took over two months to travel around the world by steamboats and railroads. In 1950, the same trips could be made in four days by a propeller driven airplane. In 1980, it took only twenty four hours to go around the world in a supersonic jet. By 1999, when an aircraft capable of exiting that atmosphere could well be in operation, the time needed to circle the globe will be reduced to minutes. Futurists are of the opinion that great advances will be made in the world in the fields of:

1)      Communication

2)      Robotics

3)      Bioengineering

4)      Medicine

While futurists talk of these advances, they are normally referring to great changes in the future in the advanced countries. For developing countries, like most of us, we are still bogged down with poverty. We still talk about the need for:

1)      Food

2)      Clothing

3)      Shelter

Poverty

An intellectual approach to poverty will normally end when a thesis is ready, a degree is earned or applause is heard at seminar, convention or conference. A political approach to poverty ends with a victory in an election. Even then, the number of voters who are poor should be sufficiently large.

We can see that in rich countries, where the number of poor voters is small and therefore politically insignificant, the poor are left alone although those countries can afford to spend billions on armaments.

In Malaysia, where the number of relatively poor voters is still very significant, it is disastrous for an elected government to ignore them. Over time, should our programmes succeed, the number of poor voters will diminish. When they become so small in number and therefore politically insignificant, will they be forgotten then? This is a crucial question.

It is also our observation in Malaysia that the poorer rural voters support the government and opposition parties thrive in cities where the voters have every basic things that they need. It does appear here that only the needy voters are dependent on the government for projects, aid and assistance. It is necessary then to retain poverty for support?

WIPER

If we are going to wipe out poverty from the face of this earth, then we need a wiper, a WIPER to wipe out poverty.

I suggest that we start thinking of a WIPER network. WIPER is the acronym for World Institute for Poverty Eradication.

By this concept, every community and every country concerned with poverty can set up a WIPER. A WIPER in each country should be formed by the country concerned. It should be national organisation without international control. There should not be an international bureaucracy controlling WIPER.

A WIPER network is not an international organisation trying to solve problems of poverty in any nation.

A WIPER instituted in any country is the national institution of that country to solve the problems of the poor of that country. Of course, the WIPER of each country can invite the poor from other nations to attend its courses. It is then a favour but not an obligation.

A WIPER is not a national institution to solve an international, global or world problem and not an international institution trying to solve a national problem.

International organisations, public and private, besides foreign governments, should provide the fund for WIPER without conditions.

They can sponsor students. We should exploit the awareness of the problems of poverty as in communiqué section 60 and 80 of the 1989 Commonwealth Conference in Malaysia, entitle (s 60) World Economic Situation and (s 82) Poverty Alleviation.

Guidelines for WIPER

Students of WIPER, of any age, should have experienced poverty. Poverty to them should be their real experience. They should know poverty by experience and not just by reading. However, the WIPER as a concept must have a syllabus or a training programme. The success of each national WIPER should be judged from the performance of its participants who have attended the training programmes.

The students or participants of WIPER training programmes should be able to overcome the environment. Within the world WIPER network, there should be an exchange of information on experiences.

We have to train our rural poor to exploit the environment.

We have to train and motivate our rural poor to make marketable things. We have to promote rural products for the urban and overseas markets.

We have to equip our rural poor with the ability to provide marketable services.

We have to beautify rural scenes for ourselves and the tourists. We have to bring the rural poor on study tours.

We are aware that the sea is a playground for the swimmer; it is a graveyard to the incapable and could be a gold mine to the fishermen.

A WIPER of each nation should learn from the experience of other WIPERS. We should not call this institutionalised idea by other name but WIPER. We should not avoid the use of the word ‘poverty’ in the name of the institution which is instituted to solve the problem of poverty.

WIPER is the recognition of the existence of a:

1)      Global problem, and

2)      Global solution

We should avoid using any other name to avoid omitting the word poor. We should face poverty head on. Even rich and developed countries need WIPER for their ghettos and slumps.